On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 04:32:19PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 05.04.23 um 15:18 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 01:16:27PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > Your comment says that it calls a PCI function to clean up to vgacon. > > > > That comment explains what is happening, not why. And how the PCI and > > > > vgacon code work together is non-obvious. > > > > Would a better comment help then: > > > > /* > > * gma500 is a strange hybrid device, which both acts as a pci > > * device (for legacy vga functionality) but also more like an > > * integrated display on a SoC where the framebuffer simply > > * resides in main memory and not in a special pci bar (that > > * internally redirects to a stolen range of main memory) like all > > * other integrated pci display devices have. > > * > > * To catch all cases we need to both remove conflicting fw > > * drivers for the pci device and main memory. > > */ > > Together with the existing comment, this should be the comment to describe > gma_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(). > > > > > > > > > Again, here's my proposal for gma500: > > > > > > > > // call this from psb_pci_probe() > > > > int gma_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct pci_dev *pdev, const > > > > struct drm_driver *req_driver) > > > > { > > > > resource_size_t base = 0; > > > > resource_size_t size = (resource_size_t)-1; > > > > const char *name = req_driver->name; > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * We cannot yet easily find the framebuffer's location in > > > > * memory. So remove all framebuffers here. > > > > * > > > > * TODO: Refactor psb_driver_load() to map vdc_reg earlier. Then > > > > * we might be able to read the framebuffer range from the > > > > * device. > > > > */ > > > > ret = aperture_remove_conflicting_devices(base, size, name); > > > > Why can't this be a call to drm_aperture_remove_framebuffers? At least as > > long as we don't implement the "read out actual fb base and size" code, > > which also none of the other soc drivers bother with? > > It can. Feel free to use it. > > But I have to say that those DRM helpers are somewhat empty and obsolete > after the aperture code has been moved to drivers/video/. They exist mostly > for convenience. As with other DRM helpers, if a driver needs something > special, it can ignore them. > > > > > > > if (ret) > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * WARNING: Apparently we must kick fbdev drivers before vgacon, > > > > * otherwise the vga fbdev driver falls over. > > > > */ > > > > ret = vga_remove_vgacon(pdev); > > > > This isn't enough, we also nuke stuff that's mapping the vga fb range. > > Which is really the reason I don't want to open code random stuff, pci is > > self-describing, if it's decoding legacy vga it can figure this out and we > > only have to implement the "how do I nuke legacy vga fw drivers from a pci > > driver" once. > > Sure, but it's really just one additional line: > > aperture_detach_devices(VGA_FB_PHYS_BASE, VGA_FB_PHYS_SIZE); > > as you mention below, this and vgacon can be exported in a single VGA > aperture helper. > > > > > Not twice like this would result in, with the gma500 version being only > > half the thing. > > > > If it absolutely has to be a separate function for the gma500 pci legacy > > vga (I still don't get why, it's just a pci vga device, there's absolutely > > nothing special about that part at all) then I think it needs to be at > > least a common "nuke a legacy vga device for me pls" function, which > > shares the implementation with the pci one. > > Sure > > /** > * kerneldoc goes here > * > * WARNING: Apparently we must remove graphics drivers before calling > * this helper. Otherwise the vga fbdev driver falls over if > * we have vgacon configured. > */ > int aperture_remove_legacy_vga_devices(struct pci_dev *pdev) > { > aperture_detach_devices(VGA_FB_PHYS_BASE, VGA_FB_PHYS_SIZE); > > return vga_remove_vgacon(pdev); > } > > And that can be called from gma500 and the pci aperture helper. But you still pass a pci_dev to that helper. Which just doesn't make any sense to me (assuming your entire point is that this isn't just a normal pci device but some special legacy vga thing), but if we go with (void) then there's more refactoring to do because the vga_remove_vgacon also wants a pdev. All so that we don't call aperture_detach_devices() on a bunch of pci bars, which apparently is not problem for any other driver, but absolutely is a huge problem for gma500 somehow. I don't understand why. Consider this me throwing in the towel. If you&Javier are convinced this makes sense please type it up and merge it, but I'm not going to type something that just doesn't make sense to me. -Daniel > Best regards > Thomas > > > > > But not open-coding just half of it only. > > > > > > if (ret) > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > If this is enough I agree that is much more easier code to understand. > > > > It's still two calls and more code with more bugs? I'm not seeing the > > point. > > -Daniel > > -- > Thomas Zimmermann > Graphics Driver Developer > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH > Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) > Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch