On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:10:27AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi
Am 03.11.20 um 10:52 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:10:41AM +0800, Tian Tao wrote:
Add new api devm_drm_irq_install() to register interrupts, no need to call drm_irq_uninstall() when the drm module is removed.
v2: fixed the wrong parameter.
Signed-off-by: Tian Tao tiantao6@hisilicon.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ include/drm/drm_drv.h | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c index cd162d4..0fe5243 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ #include <drm/drm_color_mgmt.h> #include <drm/drm_drv.h> #include <drm/drm_file.h> +#include <drm/drm_irq.h> #include <drm/drm_managed.h> #include <drm/drm_mode_object.h> #include <drm/drm_print.h> @@ -678,6 +679,28 @@ static int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent, return ret; }
+static void devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall(void *data) +{
- drm_irq_uninstall(data);
+}
+int devm_drm_irq_install(struct device *parent,
struct drm_device *dev, int irq)+{
- int ret;
- ret = drm_irq_install(dev, irq);
- if (ret)
return ret;- ret = devm_add_action(parent, devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall, dev);
- if (ret)
devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall(dev);- return ret;
+} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_drm_irq_install);
Shouldn't we tie the IRQ to the drm device (so with drmm_add_action) instead of tying it to the underlying device?
If the HW device goes away, there won't be any more interrupts. So it's similar to devm_ functions for I/O memory. Why would you use the drmm_ interface?
drm_irq_install/uninstall do more that just calling request_irq and free_irq though, they will also run (among other things) the irq-related hooks in the drm driver (irq_preinstall, irq_postinstall irq_uninstall) and wake anything waiting for a vblank to occur, so we need the DRM device and driver to still be around when we run drm_irq_uninstall. That's why (I assume) you have to pass the drm_device as an argument and not simply the device.
This probably works in most case since you would allocate the drm_device with devm_drm_dev_alloc, and then run drm_irq_install, so in the undoing phase you would have first drm_irq_uninstall to run, and everything is fine.
However, if one doesn't use devm_drm_dev_alloc but would use devm_drm_irq_install, you would have first remove being called that would free the drm device, and then drm_irq_uninstall which will use a free'd pointer.
So yeah, even though the interrupt line itself is tied to the device, all the logic we have around the interrupt that is dealt with in drm_irq_install is really tied to the drm_device. And since we tie the life of drm_device to its underlying device already (either implicitly through devm_drm_dev_alloc, or explictly through manual allocation in probe and free in remove) we can't end up in a situation where the drm_device outlives its device.
Maxime