Re: [PATCH 15/17] OMAPDSS: remove extra_info completion code

On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 19:31 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:

On Thursday 06 September 2012 07:12 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 19:05 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 06 September 2012 06:34 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 19:01 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 05 September 2012 01:55 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

quoted

Now that fifo merge has been removed, nobody uses the extra_info related
completion code, which can be removed.

I think this might come into use when we fix the usage of channel out
field. That is, since channel out is an immediate write field, when we
set a new manager for an overlay, we may need to wait till the overlay
disable kicks in, only then we should change channel out.

For this, we would need some wait for extra_info, right?

Hmm, yes, I think you are right. Previously the ovl_disable waited until
the overlay is not used anymore, but now it doesn't.

So I think I need to add wait_pending_extra_info_updates() call to the
beginning of dss_ovl_set_manager(). Or, should it be in unset_manager...
I think unset is better, then a "free" overlay always disabled also in
the HW level.

Yes, I also think it should be in unset_manager. One option could be to
leave the wait_pending_extra_info_updates() in ovl_disable itself, as it
was before. But that would force us to use mutexes there, and we'd
rather have overlay enabling and disabling as a non blocking thing.

Actually, we do have mutexes there. You are thinking about the prototype
API I have. (I also thought we didn't have mutex there =).

Ah, I missed looking at that :)

quoted

So, in fact, we can have the wait at ovl_disable like it was before. The
prototype API, which cannot block, will not have the wait, but there the
caller (i.e. omapdrm) will have to manage the proper wait.

I'm more inclined towards waiting in the unset_manager() now, we have a 
choice between "wait in ovl_disable, ensure the overlay is actually 
disabled in hw, and then get out" and "wait only when you know you need 
to wait (i.e, in unset_manager)". The second choice seems more efficient.

This wait would could last for a 1 VSYNC if we do it in ovl_disable. If 
the next task of the user of DSS is to enable another overlay, this wait 
would unnecessarily delay the enabling of the second overlay by a VSYNC. 
We could have done these tasks in the same VSYNC (since we aren't 
supporting fifomerge).

So, I feel that we should rather wait in unset_manager, where we know an 
immediate write can mess things up. Maybe, we could delay it set_manager 
too. But yeah, we won't know whether we are aligned with hw or not.

Good points. Then again, the wait function doesn't wait for the ovl to
be disabled, it waits for all extra_info changes to be done. So we could
be waiting unnecessarily in unset/set_manager. Which makes me think that
we should remove the current wait function and implement a specialized
wait for ovl disable. But that can be looked at later if seen necessary.

Also, it feels safer to ensure the ovl is disabled at ovl_disable call.
However, I was going through the code and I didn't come up with a case
where it would cause problems, except the set_manager part.

So, I guess having the wait in unset_manager is still best overall, we
don't unnecessarily spend time waiting at ovl_disable.

So even with the prototype API, where omapdrm is responsible for doing 
the waiting, it should probably wait when switching the manager, rather 
than when disabling the overlay.

Yep.

 Tomi