[RFT PATCH v2 00/48] drm/panel: Remove most store/double-check of prepared/enabled state

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 11:52 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 11:36 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > As talked about in commit d2aacaf07395 ("drm/panel: Check for already
> > prepared/enabled in drm_panel"), we want to remove needless code from
> > panel drivers that was storing and double-checking the
> > prepared/enabled state. Even if someone was relying on the
> > double-check before, that double-check is now in the core and not
> > needed in individual drivers.
> >
> > This series attempts to do just that. While the original grep, AKA:
> >   git grep 'if.*>prepared' -- drivers/gpu/drm/panel
> >   git grep 'if.*>enabled' -- drivers/gpu/drm/panel
> > ...still produces a few hits after my series, they are _mostly_ all
> > gone. The ones that are left are less trivial to fix.
> >
> > One of the main reasons that many panels probably needed to store and
> > double-check their prepared/enabled appears to have been to handle
> > shutdown and/or remove. Panels drivers often wanted to force the power
> > off for panels in these cases and this was a good reason for the
> > double-check.
> >
> > In response to my V1 series [1] we had much discussion of what to
> > do. The conclusion was that as long as DRM modeset drivers properly
> > called drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() that we should be able to remove
> > the explicit shutdown/remove handling in the panel drivers. Most of
> > the patches to improve DRM modeset drivers [2] [3] [4] have now
> > landed.
> >
> > In contrast to my V1 series, I broke the V2 series up a lot
> > more. Since a few of the panel drivers in V1 already landed, we had
> > fewer total drivers and so we could devote a patch to each panel.
> > Also, since we were now relying on DRM modeset drivers I felt like we
> > should split the patches for each panel into two: one that's
> > definitely safe and one that could be reverted if we found a
> > problematic DRM modeset driver that we couldn't fix.
> >
> > Sorry for the large number of patches. I've set things to mostly just
> > CC people on the cover letter and the patches that are relevant to
> > them. I've tried to CC people on the whole series that have shown
> > interest in this TODO item.
> >
> > As patches in this series are reviewed and/or tested they could be
> > landed. There's really no ordering requirement for the series unless
> > patches touch the same driver.
> >
> > NOTE: this touches _a lot_ of drivers, is repetitive, and is not
> > really possible to generate automatically. That means it's entirely
> > possible that my eyes glazed over and I did something wrong. Please
> > double-check me and don't assume that I got everything perfect, though
> > I did my best. I have at least confirmed that "allmodconfig" for arm64
> > doesn't fall on its face with this series. I haven't done a ton of
> > other testing.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230804140605.RFC.4.I930069a32baab6faf46d6b234f89613b5cec0f14@changeid
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230901234015.566018-1-dianders@chromium.org
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230901234202.566951-1-dianders@chromium.org
> > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230921192749.1542462-1-dianders@chromium.org
>
> This is the right thing to do, thanks for looking into this!
>
> As for the behaviour of .remove() I doubt whether in many cases
> the original driver authors have even tested this themselves.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree.


> I would say we should just apply the series as soon as it's non-RFC

It's not actually RFC now, but "RFT" (request for testing). I don't
_think_ there's any need to send a version without the RFT tag before
landing unless someone really feels strongly about it.


> after the next merge window

With drm-misc there's not really any specific reason to wait for the
merge window to open/close as we can land in drm-misc-next at any time
regardless of the merge window. drm-misc-next will simply stop feeding
linuxnext for a while.

That all being said, I'm happy to delay landing this until after the
next -rc1 comes out if people would prefer that. If I don't hear
anything, I guess I'll just wait until -rc1 before landing any of
these.


> and see what happens. I doubt it
> will cause much trouble.

I can land the whole series if that's what everyone agrees on. As I
mentioned above, I'm at least slightly worried that I did something
stupid _somewhere_ in this series since no automation was possible and
with repetitive tasks like this it's super easy to flub something up.
It's _probably_ fine, but I guess I still have the worry in the back
of my mind.

If folks think I should just apply the whole series then I'm happy to
do that. If folks think I should just land parts of the series as they
are reviewed/tested I can do that as well. Let me know. If I don't
hear anything I'd tend to just land patches that are reviewed/tested.
Then after a month or so (hopefully) I'd send out a v2 with anything
left.


> The series:
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>

Thanks!

-Doug