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