Hi,
On 2023/6/21 18:16, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Mittwoch, dem 21.06.2023 um 17:20 +0800 schrieb Sui Jingfeng:
Hi,
On 2023/6/21 17:07, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Dienstag, dem 20.06.2023 um 17:47 +0800 schrieb Sui Jingfeng:
From: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Because getting IRQ from a device is platform-dependent, PCI devices have
different methods for getting an IRQ. This patch is a preparation to extend
this driver for supporting the PCI devices.
Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c
index de8c9894967c..a03e81337d8f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c
@@ -1817,6 +1817,27 @@ static const struct of_device_id etnaviv_gpu_match[] = {
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, etnaviv_gpu_match);
+static int etnaviv_gpu_register_irq(struct etnaviv_gpu *gpu, int irq)
+{
+ struct device *dev = gpu->dev;
+ int err;
+
+ if (irq < 0)
+ return irq;
+
+ err = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, irq_handler, 0, dev_name(dev), gpu);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(dev, "failed to request irq %u: %d\n", irq, err);
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ gpu->irq = irq;
+
+ dev_info(dev, "irq(%d) handler registered\n", irq);
There is no reason to put this into the kernel log.
I want to see the IRQ of the device when debugging,
etnaviv actually print very less.
This serve as a minimal signal to us the etnaviv_gpu_register_irq()
function is successful at driver load time.
And debugging is a very different use-case than normal operation. If
it's needed at all, downgrade this to dev_dbg. This isn't interesting
information for a ordinary user of a system.
It's no different
than other resources to the driver and we don't log each one of those
either.
In fact I don't see any reason for this change in the first place.
Effectively you are moving a single function call into a new function,
which doesn't seem like an improvement.
This is to make the patch easy to review, each patch is only introduce a
small function,
What I'm saying is that I don't see the need to introduce this function
at all. All you need to do is move platform_get_irq out into the
platform device code path. The devm_request_irq can stay where it is,
as the only difference between platform and PCI device is how the irq
number is retrieved from the platform.
Yes, you are right. I understand what are asking, but my point is:
This patch is paving the way for us to introduce the PCI device driver.
All of the patches before the patch
v10-0006-drm-etnaviv-Add-driver-support-for-the-PCI-devic.patch
are actually doing the preparation.
Look at the patch 0006, I achieve the goal by 128 insertions and 7
deletions.
while the only 7 deletions are actually for code shading(convert the
static function to global function).
There is No large area diff and NO distortion.
The goal is adding a PCI device driver on the top of what we already have.
Before the cleanup, the etnaviv_gpu_platform_probe() function is just
like is a *glue*.
Originally, it integrate a lot of irrelevant part together.
1. Mapping MMIO registers make it platform-dependent;
2. Calling platform_get_irq(pdev, 0) make it platform-dependent;
3. Getting Clocks by calling devm_clk_get() make it platform-dependent;
4. Calling component_add() make it subsytem and framework-dependent;
All of above list item is deny us to introduce the PCI device driver
wrapper.
It(sub-functional code) is not relevant to each other.
Hence the first five patch is actually do the clean,
for the clarify(and tidy and good looking) of the patch 6.
I will drop the printing, but keep the cleanup function there,
Is this acceptable?
Regards,
Lucas
which is paving the way for we introducing the PCI device driver.
Otherwise when we introducing the PCI device driver, the patch is looks
ugly,
It is difficult to review.
Regards,
Lucas
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int etnaviv_gpu_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
@@ -1837,16 +1858,9 @@ static int etnaviv_gpu_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return PTR_ERR(gpu->mmio);
/* Get Interrupt: */
- gpu->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (gpu->irq < 0)
- return gpu->irq;
-
- err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, gpu->irq, irq_handler, 0,
- dev_name(gpu->dev), gpu);
- if (err) {
- dev_err(dev, "failed to request IRQ%u: %d\n", gpu->irq, err);
+ err = etnaviv_gpu_register_irq(gpu, platform_get_irq(pdev, 0));
+ if (err)
return err;
- }
/* Get Clocks: */
gpu->clk_reg = devm_clk_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "reg");
--
Jingfeng
