[AMD Public Use]
-----原始郵件----- 寄件者: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com 寄件日期: Saturday, January 4, 2020 7:34 AM 收件者: Lin, Wayne Wayne.Lin@amd.com; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 副本: Kazlauskas, Nicholas Nicholas.Kazlauskas@amd.com; Wentland, Harry Harry.Wentland@amd.com; Zuo, Jerry Jerry.Zuo@amd.com; stable@vger.kernel.org 主旨: Re: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: clear time slots for ports invalid
On Wed, 2019-12-25 at 06:45 +0000, Lin, Wayne wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 8:12 AM To: Lin, Wayne Wayne.Lin@amd.com; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Kazlauskas, Nicholas Nicholas.Kazlauskas@amd.com; Wentland, Harry Harry.Wentland@amd.com; Zuo, Jerry Jerry.Zuo@amd.com; stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: clear time slots for ports invalid
Mhh-I think I understand the problem you're trying to solve here but I think this solution might be a bit overkill. When I did the rework of topology references for ports, I made it so that we can guarantee memory access to a port without it needing to be a valid part of the topology. As well, all parents of the port are guaranteed to be accessible for as long as the child is. Take a look at:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F01
.org% 2Flinuxgraphics%2Fgfx-docs%2Fdrm%2Fgpu%2Fdrm-kms-
helpers.html%23refc
o unt-relationships-in-a-
topology&data=02%7C01%7Cwayne.lin%40amd.c
o
m%7C722655b546c049dc081908d785aa6758%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d
994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637124839257213115&sdata=Ctha3ja8kleeFOp
PpA7EwDV1is81RAMsjqd1P6463ak%3D&reserved=0
It's also worth noting that because of this there's a lot of get_port_validated()/put_port_validated() calls in the MST helpers that are now bogus and need to be removed once I get a chance. For new code we should limit the use of topology references to sections of code where we need a guarantee that resources on the port/branch (such as a drm connector, dp aux port, etc.) won't go away for as long as we need to use them.
Do you think we could change this patch so instead of removing it from the proposed payloads on the CONNECTION_STATUS_NOTIFY, we
keep
the port's memory allocation around until it's been removed from the proposed payloads table and clean it up there on the next payload update?
Really appreciate for your time and comments in detail.
In this patch, I wanted to just set the proposed_vcpi->num_slots to 0 for those ports which are no longer in the topology due to there is no need to allocate time slots for these port. And expect those vcpi will be updated during next update of payload ID table by drm_dp_update_payload_part1().
I tried to use drm_dp_mst_topology_get_port_validated() as a helper to decide whether a port is in the topology or not. Use this function to iterate over all ports that all proposed_vcpi[] drive to. If one port is not in the topology, set the num_slots of the proposed_vcpi for this port to 0. With num_slots as 0, these proposed_vcpi will be clean up in next payload table update by drm_dp_update_payload_part1(). If a port is still in the topology, then release the reference count which was acquired previously from drm_dp_mst_topology_get_port_validated() and do nothing.
I didn't mean to kill invalid ports on receiving
CONNECTION_STATUS_NOTIFY.
Sorry if I misuse or misunderstand something here?
Ahh, it seems I made the mistake here then because from your explanation you're using the API exactly as intended :). All of this has me wondering if some day we should try to get rid of the payload tracking we have and move it into atomic. But, that's a problem for another day.
Anyway-one small change below:
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 16:39 +0800, Wayne Lin wrote:
[Why] When change the connection status in a MST topology, mst device which detect the event will send out CONNECTION_STATUS_NOTIFY
messgae.
e.g. src-mst-mst-sst => src-mst (unplug) mst-sst
Currently, under the above case of unplugging device, ports which have been allocated payloads and are no longer in the topology still occupy time slots and recorded in proposed_vcpi[] of topology
manager.
If we don't clean up the proposed_vcpi[], when code flow goes to try to update payload table by calling drm_dp_update_payload_part1(), we will fail at checking port validation due to there are ports with proposed time slots but no longer in the mst topology. As the result of that, we will also stop updating the DPCD payload table of down stream
port.
[How] While handling the CONNECTION_STATUS_NOTIFY message, add a detection to see if the event indicates that a device is unplugged to an output port. If the detection is true, then iterrate over all proposed_vcpi[] to see whether a port of the proposed_vcpi[] is still in the topology or not. If the port is invalid, set its num_slots to 0.
Thereafter, when try to update payload table by calling drm_dp_update_payload_part1(), we can successfully update the
DPCD
payload table of down stream port and clear the proposed_vcpi[] to
NULL.
Signed-off-by: Wayne Lin Wayne.Lin@amd.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 24
+++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index 5306c47dc820..2e236b6275c4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -2318,7 +2318,7 @@ drm_dp_mst_handle_conn_stat(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb, { struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr = mstb->mgr; struct drm_dp_mst_port *port;
- int old_ddps, ret;
- int old_ddps, old_input, ret, i; u8 new_pdt; bool dowork = false, create_connector = false;
@@ -2349,6 +2349,7 @@ drm_dp_mst_handle_conn_stat(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb, }
old_ddps = port->ddps;
- old_input = port->input; port->input = conn_stat->input_port; port->mcs = conn_stat->message_capability_status; port->ldps = conn_stat->legacy_device_plug_status;
@@ -2373,6 +2374,27 @@ drm_dp_mst_handle_conn_stat(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb, dowork = false; }
- if (!old_input && old_ddps != port->ddps && !port->ddps) {
for (i = 0; i < mgr->max_payloads; i++) {struct drm_dp_vcpi *vcpi = mgr->proposed_vcpis[i];struct drm_dp_mst_port *port_validated;if (vcpi) {Let's invert this conditional to reduce the indenting here a bit if (!vcpi) continue;
With that change this is:
Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com
Appreciate for your time. I will do that later. Thanks!
port_validated =container_of(vcpi, structdrm_dp_mst_port, vcpi);
port_validated =drm_dp_mst_topology_get_port_validated
(mgr, port_validated);
if (!port_validated) {mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock);vcpi->num_slots = 0;mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock);} else {drm_dp_mst_topology_put_port(port_vali
dated);
}}}- }
- if (port->connector) drm_modeset_unlock(&mgr->base.lock); else if (create_connector)
-- Cheers, Lyude Paul
-- Best regards, Wayne Lin
-- Cheers, Lyude Paul
-- Best regards, Wayne Lin