lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/12] drm/nouveau/timer: skip calibration on GK20A
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 04:31 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
>>>>> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
>>>>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
>>>>>>> corresponding registers do not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
>>>>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
>>>>>>> + goto skip_clk_init;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
>>>>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
>>>>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
>>>>>> similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
>>>>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
>>>>>> newer generations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
>>>>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
>>>>> GM107.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
>>>>> probe patch) here too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
>>>> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
>>>> instead of gk20a.c?
>>>
>>> For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're
>>> working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names
>>> for things ;)
>>
>>
>> So would you like us to use the same naming scheme as well? So far all my
>> patches use "nvea.c" whenever I need to add code.
> If it's not too much of a problem at this point, then that'd be good.
> Right before I send -next for the next merge window I'll likely do a
> mass rename anyway, so if we can get your patches merged before then
> (which would be really good!), it doesn't matter much.

No problem, I will update the naming to follow what you did with the
timer driver and gm107.

Hopefully I will soon manage to carve out some time to rebase these
patches and send v2.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-15 08:41    [W:0.067 / U:11.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site