Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RESEND] drm/i915: Fix pipe/transcoder enum mismatches

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 08 May 2017, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 08:40:43PM +0300, Ville SyrjÃlà wrote:
>> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:26:36AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > El Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:56:05PM -0700 Matthias Kaehlcke ha dit:
>> > 
>> > > In several instances the driver passes an 'enum pipe' value to a
>> > > function expecting an 'enum transcoder' and viceversa. Since PIPE_x and
>> > > TRANSCODER_x have the same values this doesn't cause functional
>> > > problems. Still it is incorrect and causes clang to generate warnings
>> > > like this:
>> > > 
>> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c:1844:34: warning: implicit
>> > >   conversion from enumeration type 'enum transcoder' to different
>> > >   enumeration type 'enum pipe' [-Wenum-conversion]
>> > >     assert_fdi_rx_enabled(dev_priv, TRANSCODER_A);
>> > > 
>> > > Change the code to pass values of the type expected by the callee.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++--
>> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c      | 6 ++++--
>> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdmi.c    | 6 ++++--
>> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c    | 6 ++++--
>> > >  4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > Ping, any comments on this patch?
>> 
>> I'm not convinced the patch is making things any better really. To
>> fix this really properly, I think we'd need to introduce a new enum 
>> pch_transcoder and thus avoid the confusion of which type of
>> transcoder we're talking about. Currently most places expect an 
>> enum pipe when dealing with PCH transcoders, and enum transcoder
>> when dealing with CPU transcoders. But there are some exceptions
>> of course.
>
> enum transcoder is wrong for the pch, that enum is only for cpu
> transcoders introduced in hsw+. PCH should always use enum pipe.

For background, below is the commit message for introduction of enum
transcoder.

> So a patch to switch the enum to enum pipe for all the pch functions
> sounds like the right thing to do here. Plus maybe rename enum transcoder
> to enum cpu_transcoder, but that'd be tons of work. A comment instead
> might be easier ...

The enum pipe conversion might be the right thing to do *if* you must do
something. But I'm not convinced you must. It's a bunch of churn that's
not just purely mechanical conversion.

BR,
Jani.


commit a5c961d1f3a9ab5ba0e5706e866192f8108143fe
Author: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Wed Oct 24 15:59:34 2012 -0200

    drm/i915: add TRANSCODER_EDP
    
    Before Haswell we used to have the CPU pipes and the PCH transcoders.
    We had the same amount of pipes and transcoders, and there was a 1:1
    mapping between them. After Haswell what we used to call CPU pipe was
    split into CPU pipe and CPU transcoder. So now we have 3 CPU pipes (A,
    B and C), 4 CPU transcoders (A, B, C and EDP) and 1 PCH transcoder
    (only used for VGA).
    
    For all the outputs except for EDP we have an 1:1 mapping on the CPU
    pipes and CPU transcoders, so if you're using CPU pipe A you have to
    use CPU transcoder A. When have an eDP output you have to use
    transcoder EDP and you can attach this CPU transcoder to any of the 3
    CPU pipes. When using VGA you need to select a pair of matching CPU
    pipes/transcoders (A/A, B/B, C/C) and you also need to enable/use the
    PCH transcoder.
    
    For now we're just creating the cpu_transcoder definitions and setting
    cpu_transcoder to TRANSCODER_EDP on DDI eDP code, but none of the
    registers was ported to use transcoder instead of pipe. The goal is to
    keep the code backwards-compatible since on all cases except when
    using eDP we must have pipe == cpu_transcoder.
    
    V2: Comment the haswell_crtc_off chunk, suggested by Damien Lespiau
    and Daniel Vetter.
    
    We currently need the haswell_crtc_off chunk because TRANSCODER_EDP
    can be used by any CRTC, so when you stop using it you have to stop
    saying you're using it, otherwise you may have at some point 2 CRTCs
    claiming they're using TRANSCODER_EDP (a disabled CRTC and an enabled
    one), then the HW state readout code will get completely confused.
    
    In other words:
    
    Imagine the following case:
      xrandr --output eDP1 --auto --crtc 0
      xrandr --output eDP1 --off
      xrandr --output eDP1 --auto --crtc 2
    
    After the last command you could get a "pipe A assertion failure
    (expected off, current on)" because CRTC 0 still claims it's using
    TRANSCODER_EDP, so the HW state readout function will read it
    (through PIPECONF) and expect it to be off, when it's actually on
    because it's being used by CRTC 2.
    
    So when we make "intel_crtc->cpu_transcoder = intel_crtc->pipe" we
    make sure we're pointing to our own original CRTC which is certainly
    not used by any other CRTC.
    
    Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>




-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center