Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 May 2014 10:46:21 +0200 | From | Thierry Reding <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/nouveau: hook up cache sync functions |
| |
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:10:57PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > From: Lucas Stach <dev@lynxeye.de> > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <dev@lynxeye.de> > [acourbot@nvidia.com: make conditional and platform-friendly] > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Perhaps having a propery commit message here would be good.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c [...] > +#ifdef NOUVEAU_NEED_CACHE_SYNC > +void > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo) > +{ > + struct nouveau_device *device; > + struct ttm_tt *ttm = nvbo->bo.ttm; > + > + device = nouveau_dev(nouveau_bdev(ttm->bdev)->dev); > + > + if (nvbo->bo.ttm && nvbo->bo.ttm->caching_state == tt_cached) > + ttm_dma_tt_cache_sync_for_cpu((struct ttm_dma_tt *)nvbo->bo.ttm, > + nv_device_base(device));
Can we be certain at this point that the struct ttm_tt is in fact a struct ttm_dma_tt?
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.h [...] > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA) > +#define NOUVEAU_NEED_CACHE_SYNC > +#endif
I know I gave this as an example myself when we discussed this offline, but I'm now thinking that this might actually be better off in Kconfig.
> +#ifdef NOUVEAU_NEED_CACHE_SYNC > +void nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *); > +void nouveau_bo_sync_for_device(struct nouveau_bo *); > +#else > +static inline void > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *) > +{ > +} > + > +static inline void > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_device(struct nouveau_bo *) > +{ > +} > +#endif > + > +
There's a gratuituous blank line here.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > index c90c0dc0afe8..b7e42fdc9634 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > @@ -897,7 +897,13 @@ nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > ret = ttm_bo_wait(&nvbo->bo, true, true, no_wait); > spin_unlock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); > drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(gem); > - return ret; > + > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(nvbo); > + > + return 0; > }
This could be rewritten as:
if (!ret) nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(nvbo);
return ret;
Which would be slightly shorter.
On second thought, perhaps part of nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep() could be refactored into a separate function to make this more symmetric. If we put that in nouveau_bo.c and name it nouveau_bo_wait() for example, the dummies can go away and both nouveau_bo_sync_for_{cpu,device}() can be made static. I also think that's cleaner because it has both variants of the nouveau_bo_sync_for_*() calls in the same file.
Thierry [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |