On 23 February 2016 at 14:51, Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Xinliang Liu <xinliang.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 15 February 2016 at 19:04, Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:16:52AM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote: >>>>> Following Daniel's request, I spent some time removing the hard requirement >>>>> that radeon and amdgpu will always appear _after_ amdkfd in the drm Makefile. >>>>> >>>>> This was done by modifing radeon/amdgpu to defer their loading if they detect >>>>> that amdkfd is not loaded yet, in case the drivers are built inside the >>>>> kernel image. >>>>> >>>>> See the patch's individiual commit messages for more explanation. >>>>> >>>>> This patch-set was tested on a KAVERI machine, with multiple configurations: >>>>> >>>>> 1. radeon + amdgpu (CIK disabled) + amdkfd as kernel modules >>>>> 2. radeon + amdgpu (CIK disabled) + amdkfd inside the kernel image >>>>> 3. amdgpu (CIK enabled) + amdkfd inside the kernel image (radeon not compiled) >>>>> 4. amdgpu (CIK enabled) inside the kernel image (radeon + amdkfd not compiled) >>>>> 5. radeon + amdgpu (CIK disabled) as kernel modules (amdkfd not compiled) >>>> >>>> Care to throw one patch on top (maybe on top of the patch floating around) >>>> to reorder amdkfd to be alphabetical? Just to make sure this doesn't get >>>> broken again accidentally. Or maybe just pick up the other patch and adapt >>>> it so it's all in one series. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Daniel >>> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> I thought about it and I think I prefer to leave the current order as >>> it is, for the reason that I observed the boot-up process is a little >>> bit faster when the deferred probing doesn't occur. This is probably >>> because all the moves between pending drivers list and active driver >>> list. >>> >>> Although this patch-set ensure that the kernel will boot successfully >>> with no regard to the order of amdkfd/radeon/amdgpu in the drm >> >> So, my drm make clean up patch should keep amdkfd in front of radeon/amdgpu? >> >> Best, >> -xinliang > > As I wrote to Daniel, I think that for the sake of a faster boot time, > we should keep amdkfd before radeon/amdgpu. This patch is to make sure > that if someone will change it without us watching, everything will > still work (and that's why its an important patch as Daniel said) > OK, got it. > Oded > >> >>> makefile, I think that if the current order gives us a bit less boot >>> time then it is better to keep things as they are. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Oded >>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Oded >>>>> >>>>> Oded Gabbay (3): >>>>> drm/amdkfd: Track when module's init is complete >>>>> drm/radeon: Return -EPROBE_DEFER when amdkfd not loaded >>>>> drm/amdgpu: Return -EPROBE_DEFER when amdkfd not loaded >>>>> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd.c | 57 +++++++++---------------- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd.h | 2 +- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c | 10 ++++- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_module.c | 15 +++++-- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/kgd_kfd_interface.h | 2 +- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.c | 10 ++++- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_kfd.c | 25 ++++++----- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_kfd.h | 2 +- >>>>> 8 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.5.0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Vetter >>>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation >>>> http://blog.ffwll.ch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dri-devel mailing list >>> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
