On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:10:47PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 05:01:28PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 03:36:05PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail_crtc_early_late - commit atomic update
> > >
> > > Based on the function name, it feels that the nem commit tail and
> > > modeset enable/disable helpers reached a point where we may want to
> > > reconsider the design instead of adding new functions with small
> > > differences in behaviour that will end up confusing driver developers.
> >
> > Agreed, and I'd go even further than that: we don't want every odd order
> > in the core. And if some driver has to break the order we document in
> > some way it should be very obvious.
> 
> Is this just a comment on this patch 3/3?
> 
> Or do you mean that Mareks new callback
> drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_enables_crtc_early()
> from patch 1/2 should go straight into the R-Car driver as well
> and that
> drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_disables_crtc_late()
> patch 2/2 should also go into my driver, even if this
> is a comment on patch 3/3?
> 
> Both patches 1 & 2 have a lot to do with ordering, this is
> why I ask.

I mean, it applies to all your three patches and Marek's: helpers are
here to provide a default implementation. We shouldn't provide a default
implementation for a single user. All your patches enable to create
defaults for a single user.

So my point is that none of those functions should be helpers.

> We already have
> drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail()
> drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail_rpm()

The former has 5 users, the latter 13. And it's already confusing enough
and regression-prone as it is.

> Does one more or less really matter? Maybe, I'm not sure,
> but if it's just this one patch that is the problem I can surely
> do it that way since we're only calling public functions.
> 
> Pushing the first two patches would be more problematic,
> because they call a lot of functions that are local to the
> drm atomic helpers.

I'm totally fine with making more internal functions public though.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to