On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:20 PM Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2022 2:02 PM, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c
> > +++ b/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c
> > @@ -8,14 +8,25 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > #include <linux/device.h>
> > +#include <linux/xarray.h>
>
> If we are not using xarray at this time, do we still need this include?
>
> >
> > #include <drm/drm_accel.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_debugfs.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_file.h>
> > #include <drm/drm_ioctl.h>
> > #include <drm/drm_print.h>
> >
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(accel_minor_lock);
> > +static struct idr accel_minors_idr;
>
> I beleive we should have an explicit include for the IDR header.
>
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_accel.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_accel.h
> > @@ -8,12 +8,56 @@
> > #ifndef DRM_ACCEL_H_
> > #define DRM_ACCEL_H_
> >
> > -#define ACCEL_MAJOR 261
> > +#include <drm/drm_file.h>
> > +
> > +#define ACCEL_MAJOR 261
> > +#define ACCEL_MAX_MINORS 256
>
> This diff seems really weird. The changes to the ACCEL_MAJOR define
> could get pushed to the previous patch, no?
>
> > @@ -23,9 +67,31 @@ static inline void accel_core_exit(void)
> >
> > static inline int __init accel_core_init(void)
> > {
> > + /* Return 0 to allow drm_core_init to complete successfully */
>
> Move to previous patch?
>
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_drv.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
> > @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ enum drm_driver_feature {
> > * synchronization of command submission.
> > */
> > DRIVER_SYNCOBJ_TIMELINE = BIT(6),
> > + /**
> > + * @DRIVER_COMPUTE_ACCEL:
> > + *
> > + * Driver supports compute acceleration devices. This flag is mutually exclusive with
> > + * @DRIVER_RENDER and @DRIVER_MODESET. Devices that support both graphics and compute
> > + * acceleration should be handled by two drivers that are connected using auxiliry bus.
>
> auxiliry -> auxiliary
>
All comments will be fixed.
Thanks,
Oded
