On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 04:39:01PM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> The checks in msm_dp_display_prepare() for making sure that we are in
> ST_DISPLAY_OFF OR ST_MAINLINK_READY seem redundant.
>
> DRM fwk shall not issue any commits if state is not ST_MAINLINK_READY as
> msm_dp's atomic_check callback returns a failure if state is not
> ST_MAINLINK_READY.
Can the state change between atomic_check() and atomic_commit()?
>
> For the ST_DISPLAY_OFF check, its mainly to guard against a scenario that
> there is an atomic_enable() without a prior atomic_disable() which once again
> should not really happen.
>
> To simplify the code, get rid of these checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhin...@quicinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> index 992184cc17e4..614fff09e5f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> @@ -1513,12 +1513,6 @@ void msm_dp_bridge_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge
> *drm_bridge,
> return;
> }
>
> - state = msm_dp_display->hpd_state;
> - if (state != ST_DISPLAY_OFF && state != ST_MAINLINK_READY) {
> - mutex_unlock(&msm_dp_display->event_mutex);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> rc = msm_dp_display_set_mode(dp, &msm_dp_display->msm_dp_mode);
> if (rc) {
> DRM_ERROR("Failed to perform a mode set, rc=%d\n", rc);
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
