should_use_d...ock_for_link(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

Okay so picture this: you're deep in the AMD display driver, you've got a dc_link, you've got a DMUB, and you need to know which inbox lock you're supposed to be using. That's literally this function. She's a little bool-returning icon and she's here to answer exactly one question for you πŸŽ€


🌸 NAME 🌸

should_use_dmub_inbox0_lock_for_link β€” checks if the inbox0 interlock with DMU should be used. That's it, that's the whole job, and she does it flawlessly πŸ’–


✨ SYNOPSIS ✨

bool should_use_dmub_inbox0_lock_for_link (const struct dc *dc , const
struct dc_link *link );

Two pointers in, one bool out. Clean. Minimal. Iconic 🫢


πŸ¦‹ ARGUMENTS πŸ¦‹

  • dc β€” pointer to the DC object. Your main character struct, no notes πŸ’…
  • link β€” an optional pointer to the link object, and like… what it's there for is to check for enabled link features. So if you got features turned on, she wants to see 'em πŸ‘€
Lowkey important: link is optional. Don't come for me if you pass something weird, just know the manpage said optional and I'm just the messenger πŸ“

🌈 DESCRIPTION 🌈

So here's the tea, bestie: this is not functionally equivalent to inbox1. Not even a little. Why? Because with inbox0, DMUB will not own the programming of the relevant locking registers. That's the whole distinction. Inbox1 has DMUB doing the register programming; inbox0 does not. Different vibes entirely, fr fr πŸ’€


⭐ RETURN ⭐

  • true β€” yes babes, use the inbox0 lock πŸ”₯
  • false β€” nope, not this one, go elsewhere πŸ™ˆ

πŸ‘‘ SEE ALSO πŸ‘‘


Go check those siblings too, iykyk. They're all in the same friend group and they all matter πŸ’œ

That's the whole page, bestie! This little gem comes to you from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/... and it's dated October 2026 β€” so yeah, she's from the future AND she's flawless. Slay, periodt πŸ’…βœ¨πŸŽ€

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from