On 3/1/23 15:21, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:23:19AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 12:52:10PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 15:30 +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
>>>> The if / else block code has same effect irrespective of the logical
>>>> evaluation. Hence, simply the implementation by removing the unnecessary
>>>> conditional evaluation. While at it, also fix the long line checkpatch
>>>> complaint. Issue identified using cond_no_effect.cocci Coccinelle
>>>> semantic patch script.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <d...@mailo.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Please note: The proposed change is compile tested only. If there are any
>>>> inbuilt test cases that I should run for further verification, I will
>>>> appreciate
>>>> guidance about it. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Preface: I do not know the code.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Rodrigo Siqueira made a copy/paste error submitting the code for
>>> commit 9114b55fabae ("drm/amd/display: Fix SubVP control flow in the MPO
>>> context")
>>> as the code prior to this change is identical.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one of the false uses should be true or dependent on the
>>> interdependent_update_lock state.
>>
>> Thank you Joe for the recommendation.
>>
>> Hi Rodrigo,
>> Can you review and comment on if and what is wrong with your commit?
>
> Hello Rodrigo, Alex,
> Could you please suggest what would be the necessary fix for this typo error?
>
It's not quite a "typo" error. When I look at this code in our internal repo I
see
a couple missing lock calls here that differ between the two cases. I don't
know why
this was never ported over and am surprised it doesn't lead to issues.
I would prefer we keep the code as-is for now until this gets sorted.
Harry
> Thank you,
> Deepak.
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> ./drv
>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
>>> []
>>>> @@ -3470,14 +3470,9 @@ static void commit_planes_for_stream(struct dc *dc,
>>>> /* Since phantom pipe programming is moved to
>>>> post_unlock_program_front_end,
>>>> * move the SubVP lock to after the phantom pipes have been
>>>> setup
>>>> */
>>>> - if (should_lock_all_pipes &&
>>>> dc->hwss.interdependent_update_lock) {
>>>> - if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock)
>>>> - dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context,
>>>> false, should_lock_all_pipes, NULL, subvp_prev_use);
>>>> - } else {
>>>> - if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock)
>>>> - dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context,
>>>> false, should_lock_all_pipes, NULL, subvp_prev_use);
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>
>>> Perhaps something like:
>>>
>>> if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock)
>>> dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context,
>>> should_lock_all_pipes
>>> &&
>>>
>>> dc->hwss.interdependent_update_lock,
>>> should_lock_all_pipes,
>>> NULL, subvp_prev_use);
>>>
>>>> + if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock)
>>>> + dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context, false,
>>>> should_lock_all_pipes,
>>>> + NULL, subvp_prev_use);
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
