On 04.02.2013 23:43, Thierry Reding wrote:
> My point was that you could include the call to host1x_syncpt_reset()
> within host1x_syncpt_init(). That will keep unneeded code out of the
> host1x_probe() function. Also you don't want to use the syncpoints
> uninitialized, right?
Of course, sorry, I misunderstood. That makes a lot of sense.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static u32 syncpt_load_min(struct host1x_syncpt *sp)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct host1x *dev = sp->dev;
>>>> + u32 old, live;
>>>> +
>>>> + do {
>>>> + old = host1x_syncpt_read_min(sp);
>>>> + live = host1x_sync_readl(dev,
>>>> + HOST1X_SYNC_SYNCPT_0 + sp->id * 4);
>>>> + } while ((u32)atomic_cmpxchg(&sp->min_val, old, live) != old);
>>>
>>> I think this warrants a comment.
>>
>> Sure. It just loops in case there's a race writing to min_val.
>
> Oh, I see. That'd make a good comment. Is the cast to (u32) really
> necessary?
I'll add a comment. atomic_cmpxchg returns a signed value, so I think
the cast is needed.
> Save/restore has the disadvantage of the direction not being implicit.
> Save could mean save to hardware or save to software. The same is true
> for restore. However if the direction is clearly defined, save and
> restore work for me.
>
> Maybe the comment could be changed to be more explicit. Something like:
>
> /*
> * Write cached syncpoint and waitbase values to hardware.
> */
>
> And for host1x_syncpt_save():
>
> /*
> * For client-managed registers, update the cached syncpoint and
> * waitbase values by reading from the registers.
> */
I was using save in the same way as f.ex. i915 (i915_suspend.c): save
state of hardware to RAM, restore state from RAM. I'll add proper
comments, but save and restore are for all syncpts, not only client managed.
>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Updates the last value read from hardware.
>>>> + */
>>>> +u32 host1x_syncpt_load_min(struct host1x_syncpt *sp)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u32 val;
>>>> + val = sp->dev->syncpt_op.load_min(sp);
>>>> + trace_host1x_syncpt_load_min(sp->id, val);
>>>> +
>>>> + return val;
>>>> +}
> Maybe the function should be called host1x_syncpt_load() if there is no
> equivalent way to load the maximum value (since there is no register to
> read from).
Sounds good. Maximum is just a software concept.
> That's certainly true for interrupts. However, if you look at the DMA
> subsystem for example, you can also request an unnamed resource.
>
> The difference is sufficiently subtle that host1x_syncpt_allocate()
> would work for me too, though. I just have a slight preference for
> host1x_syncpt_request().
I don't really have a strong preference, so I'll follow your suggestion.
Terje
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
