lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-19 11:41    [W:0.188 / U:1.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site