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.
Ben.