Re: [PATCH 6/6] drm/i915: Give meaningful names to all the planes

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 05:38:48PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:

Hi Ville,

On 12 November 2015 at 16:52, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:

...

From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com

Let's name our planes in a way that makes sense wrt. the spec:

• skl+ -> "plane 1A", "plane 2A", "plane 1C", "cursor A" etc.
• g4x+ -> "primary A", "primary B", "sprite A", "cursor C" etc.
• pre-g4x -> "plane A", "cursor B" etc.

Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index 2b5e81a..82b2f58 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -13788,7 +13788,15 @@ static void intel_finish_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc, void intel_plane_destroy(struct drm_plane *plane) { struct intel_plane *intel_plane = to_intel_plane(plane);

•   char *name;
  

•   /*
  

•    * drm_plane_cleanup() zeroes the structure, so
  

•    * need an extra dance to avoid leaking the name.
  

•    */
  

•   name = plane->name;
    drm_plane_cleanup(plane);
  

•   kfree(name);
    kfree(intel_plane);
  

}

@@ -13838,6 +13846,21 @@ static struct drm_plane *intel_primary_plane_create(struct drm_device *dev, if (HAS_FBC(dev) && INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 4) primary->plane = !pipe;

•   if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
  

•           primary->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "plane 1%c",
  

•                                          pipe_name(pipe));
  

•   else if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 5 || IS_G4X(dev))
  

•           primary->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "primary %c",
  

•                                          pipe_name(pipe));
  

•   else
  

•           primary->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "plane %c",
  

•                                          plane_name(primary->plane));
  

•   if (!primary->base.name) {
  

•           kfree(state);
  

•           kfree(primary);
  

•           return NULL;
  

Worth adding a label and doing all the teardown there ? (same goes for the rest of the patch)

Dunno. Was feeling lazy, and so didn't go the extra mile.

...

•   }
  

•   if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) {
            intel_primary_formats = skl_primary_formats;
            num_formats = ARRAY_SIZE(skl_primary_formats);
  

@@ -13987,6 +14010,14 @@ static struct drm_plane *intel_cursor_plane_create(struct drm_device *dev, cursor->commit_plane = intel_commit_cursor_plane; cursor->disable_plane = intel_disable_cursor_plane;

•   cursor->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "cursor %c",
  

•                                 pipe_name(pipe));
  

•   if (!cursor->base.name) {
  

•           kfree(state);
  

•           kfree(cursor);
  

•           return NULL;
  

•   }
  

•   drm_universal_plane_init(dev, &cursor->base, 0,
                             &intel_plane_funcs,
                             intel_cursor_formats,
  

@@ -14113,9 +14144,9 @@ static void intel_crtc_init(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe)

fail: if (primary)

•           drm_plane_cleanup(primary);
  

•           intel_plane_destroy(primary);
    if (cursor)
  

•           drm_plane_cleanup(cursor);
  

•           intel_plane_destroy(cursor);
  

Something feels strange here. We are either leaking memory before or we'll end up with double free after your patch. Worth checking/mentioning in the commit message ?

Yeah, I think we were leaking here. Forgot to add a note.