This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function.
Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com --- xf86drm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/xf86drm.c b/xf86drm.c index b5a174b..900e4b1 100644 --- a/xf86drm.c +++ b/xf86drm.c @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ int drmOpen(const char *name, const char *busid) */ int drmOpenWithType(const char *name, const char *busid, int type) { - if (!drmAvailable() && name != NULL && drm_server_info) { + if (name != NULL && drm_server_info && !drmAvailable()) { /* try to load the kernel module */ if (!drm_server_info->load_module(name)) { drmMsg("[drm] failed to load kernel module "%s"\n", name);
Reviewed-by: Jammy Zhou Jammy.Zhou@amd.com
Regards, Jammy
-----Original Message----- From: dri-devel [mailto:dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Joonyoung Shim Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:58 AM To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: emil.l.velikov@gmail.com Subject: [PATCH] xf86drm: remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily
This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function.
Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com --- xf86drm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/xf86drm.c b/xf86drm.c index b5a174b..900e4b1 100644 --- a/xf86drm.c +++ b/xf86drm.c @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ int drmOpen(const char *name, const char *busid) */ int drmOpenWithType(const char *name, const char *busid, int type) { - if (!drmAvailable() && name != NULL && drm_server_info) { + if (name != NULL && drm_server_info && !drmAvailable()) { /* try to load the kernel module */ if (!drm_server_info->load_module(name)) { drmMsg("[drm] failed to load kernel module "%s"\n", name); -- 1.9.1
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com wrote:
This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function.
Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ?
-Emil
It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway because name is NULL. On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" emil.l.velikov@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com wrote:
This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function.
Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ?
-Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier.
If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options: - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the module for us, or - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded.
So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that sound ?
Thanks Emil
On 28 May 2015 at 15:15, Daniel Kurtz djkurtz@google.com wrote:
It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway because name is NULL.
On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" emil.l.velikov@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com wrote:
This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function.
Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ?
-Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier.
If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options:
- opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the
module for us, or
- bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be
able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded.
So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that sound ?
I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device is open only once when call drmOpenWithType().
Thanks Emil
On 28 May 2015 at 15:15, Daniel Kurtz djkurtz@google.com wrote:
It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway because name is NULL.
On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" emil.l.velikov@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com wrote:
This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function.
Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ?
-Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 29 May 2015 at 07:50, Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com wrote:
On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier.
If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options:
- opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the
module for us, or
- bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be
able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded.
So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that sound ?
I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device is open only once when call drmOpenWithType().
Seems that checking via drmAvailable() is quicker than going through the whole drmOpen*. On the other side the former does not cater for render only devices... fun.
Seems like this is the price to pay, considering that our current libdrm caters after both UMS(DRI1) and KMS(DRI2+) drivers. In the kernel we did have some nice cleanup (props to Daniel V and others) although in the userspace side things are less polished.
Perhaps we can get libdrm 3 soon or start annotating the old functions as depreciated ? Curious if one should add libdrm_ancient.so (or similar) to ensure that things don't break when building old apps against new libdrm ?
TLDR: No objections against the patch, but we should consider cleaning/splitting the ancient APIs.
-Emil
On 05/30/2015 10:20 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 07:50, Joonyoung Shim jy0922.shim@samsung.com wrote:
On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier.
If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options:
- opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the
module for us, or
- bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be
able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded.
So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that sound ?
I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device is open only once when call drmOpenWithType().
Seems that checking via drmAvailable() is quicker than going through the whole drmOpen*. On the other side the former does not cater for render only devices... fun.
If want to check via drmAvailable(), we can call it regardless of drmOpen*.
Seems like this is the price to pay, considering that our current libdrm caters after both UMS(DRI1) and KMS(DRI2+) drivers. In the kernel we did have some nice cleanup (props to Daniel V and others) although in the userspace side things are less polished.
Perhaps we can get libdrm 3 soon or start annotating the old functions as depreciated ? Curious if one should add libdrm_ancient.so (or similar) to ensure that things don't break when building old apps against new libdrm ?
TLDR: No objections against the patch, but we should consider cleaning/splitting the ancient APIs.
Agree but what i wanted to say is just to remove unnecessary to open DRM device in drmOpen*.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Kurtz -
Emil Velikov -
Joonyoung Shim -
Zhou, Jammy