Messages in this thread | | | From | Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] drm/mediatek: Fix using wrong drm private data to bind mediatek-drm | Date | Sat, 5 Aug 2023 08:05:51 +0000 |
| |
Hi Eugen,
Thanks for the reviews.
On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 16:22 +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote: > On 8/2/23 17:47, Jason-JH.Lin wrote: > > In mtk_drm_kms_init(), each element in all_drm_priv should has one > > display path private data only, such as: > > all_drm_priv[CRTC_MAIN] should has main_path data only > > all_drm_priv[CRTC_EXT] should has ext_path data only > > all_drm_priv[CRTC_THIRD] should has third_path data only > > s/should has/should have/ ? >
Although each element is singular, `should have` is correct.
`should` is an auxiliary verb, so we can only use infinitive verbs after that.
So this part of comment should be like this: In mtk_drm_kms_init(), each element in all_drm_priv should have one display path private data, such as: all_drm_priv[CRTC_MAIN] should only have main_path data all_drm_priv[CRTC_EXT] should only have ext_path data all_drm_priv[CRTC_THIRD] should only have third_path data
Right?
> > > > So we need to add the length checking for each display path before > > assigning their drm private data into all_drm_priv array. > > > > Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195 > > multi mmsys support") > > Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com> > > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno < > > angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > > Reviewed-by: CK Hu <ck.hu@mediatek.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c > > index 89a38561ba27..c12886f31e54 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c > > @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct > > device *dev) > > { > > struct mtk_drm_private *drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > struct mtk_drm_private *all_drm_priv[MAX_CRTC]; > > + struct mtk_drm_private *temp_drm_priv; > > struct device_node *phandle = dev->parent->of_node; > > const struct of_device_id *of_id; > > struct device_node *node; > > @@ -373,9 +374,18 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct > > device *dev) > > if (!drm_dev || !dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev)) > > continue; > > > > - all_drm_priv[cnt] = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev); > > - if (all_drm_priv[cnt] && all_drm_priv[cnt]- > > >mtk_drm_bound) > > - cnt++; > > + temp_drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev); > > + if (temp_drm_priv) { > > This is inside a 'for' loop right ? > Why don't you just 'continue' if temp_drm_priv is null ? >
Yes, you are right. I'll use `if (!temp_drm_priv) continue;` to make this statement simpler. Thanks.
Regards, Jason-JH.Lin.
> > > + if (temp_drm_priv->mtk_drm_bound) > > + cnt++; > > + > > + if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len) > > + all_drm_priv[CRTC_MAIN] = > > temp_drm_priv; > > + else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len) > > + all_drm_priv[CRTC_EXT] = temp_drm_priv; > > + else if (temp_drm_priv->data->third_len) > > + all_drm_priv[CRTC_THIRD] = > > temp_drm_priv; > > + } > > } > > > > if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) { > >
| |