> > > > to be > > > added. > > > > A lot of weird things going on here. > > > > > > > > 1st one is how is it finding a payload which we do not create > > > > while we call destroy function > > > > > > > > 2nd how is VCPI with id 0 possible from what I see VCPI are 1 at > > > > least that's what I gather from > > > > drm_dp_mst_atomic_check_payload_alloc_limits.So what are we > > > > missing > > > when we create a payload? > > > > > > > > Imre, Jani any idea still new to how payload creation work so am I > > > > missing something. > > > > > > A VCPI ID will be assigned to a payload during an atomic commit only > > > if the corresponding MST connector is still connected. If the MST > > > connector gets disconnected by the time of the atomic commit - as in > > > the above case - no VCPI ID will assigned and the allocation table > > > in the branch device cannot be updated either for the payload, as > > > indicated by the above payload creation/removal failed messages. > > > > > > I think the fix should be not to clear the VCPI ID if it's 0. Valid > > > VCPI IDs start from 1. > > > > Hmm then in that case should we just return 0 early if vcpi turns out to be > > 0 > here. > > The payload should be still deleted, so only the clearing of VCPI ID from > payload_mask needs to be avoided if the ID is 0.
Ohkay got it will send the next revision to reflect that Regards, Suraj Kandpal > > > Regards, > > Suraj Kandpal > > > > > > Regards > > > > Suraj Kandpal > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > Jani. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> } > > > > > >> > > > > > >> return 0; > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> 2.34.1 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jani Nikula, Intel
