Re: [PATCH 0/9] drm: replace simple display pipe users with atomic helpers

["Ze Huang" <ze.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon Jul 6, 2026 at 3:27 PM CST, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 04.07.26 um 20:31 schrieb Ze Huang:
>> struct drm_simple_display_pipe was meant to simplify simple DRM
>> drivers, but instead adds an extra wrapper around normal DRM atomic
>> helper setup. As noted in Documentation/gpu/todo.rst, remaining users
>> should be converted to regular atomic helpers and stop depending on the
>> simple-KMS interfaces.
>>
>> This series converts the following drivers:
>>
>>    - arcpgu
>>    - aspeed
>>    - imx lcdc
>>    - mcde
>>    - pl111
>>    - gm12u320
>>    - repaper
>>    - tve200
>>    - xen frontend
>>
>> Each patch replaces drm_simple_display_pipe_init() with explicit
>> primary plane, CRTC and encoder setup, and moves the old simple-pipe
>> callbacks into regular plane and CRTC helper callbacks named according
>> to local driver conventions.
>>
>> The conversions preserve helper behavior that used to be implicit in
>> drm_simple_kms_helper.c, including plane-state validation, CRTC
>> primary-plane checks, affected-plane propagation, framebuffer prepare
>> handling, and existing event/vblank flow where applicable.
>>
>> Result is less helper indirection and more explicit driver-side atomic
>> wiring, with no remaining simple-KMS dependency in these drivers.
>>
>> These changes are build-tested only. No hardware testing has been
>> performed on the affected devices.
>
> Thanks a lot for the series. That's quite a nice cleanup.  Did you use 
> any AI to create these patches?
>

Hi Thomas,

Yes, I did. I wrote the first two conversion patches (arcpgu and
aspeed) myself to understand the migration pattern. For the remaining
drivers, I used GPT-5.5 to help with the repetitive boilerplate
conversion.

I should have reviewed the generated code more carefully before sending
the series. The sashiko-bot feedback shows that I missed several important
details, including commit-local state handling, the implicit NULL fb /
visibility checks from simple-KMS, and vblank/pageflip event ordering.
I am now going through these issues more carefully and working out the
correct fixes before sending a v2.

Do you expect AI assistance to be mentioned in the cover letter or commit
messages in some specific form? If there is a preferred tag or wording
for this, I will use it in v2.

For issues that appear to be pre-existing but are exposed or carried over
by the migration, which is better?

1. Include them as separate prep/fix patches at the beginning of the v2
series, before the corresponding conversion patches; or
2. address those pre-existing issues in a separate follow-up series?

Thanks for your time and review. :)

> Best regards
> Thomas
>

Best regards,
Ze