On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:20:58AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 04-03-14 09:14, Daniel Vetter schreef:
> >On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:50:38AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>op 03-03-14 22:11, Daniel Vetter schreef:
> >>>On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:57:19PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>>>Android syncpoints can be mapped to a timeline. This removes the need
> >>>>to maintain a separate api for synchronization. I've left the android
> >>>>trace events in place, but the core fence events should already be
> >>>>sufficient for debugging.
> >>>>
> >>>>v2:
> >>>>- Call fence_remove_callback in sync_fence_free if not all fences have fired.
> >>>>v3:
> >>>>- Merge Colin Cross' bugfixes, and the android fence merge optimization.
> >>>>v4:
> >>>>- Merge with the upstream fixes.
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>---
> >>>Snipped everything but headers - Ian Lister from our android team is
> >>>signed up to have a more in-depth look at proper integration with android
> >>>syncpoints. Adding him to cc.
> >>>
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sync.h b/drivers/staging/android/sync.h
> >>>>index 62e2255b1c1e..6036dbdc8e6f 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/staging/android/sync.h
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/staging/android/sync.h
> >>>>@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >>>> #include <linux/list.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/wait.h>
> >>>>+#include <linux/fence.h>
> >>>>
> >>>> struct sync_timeline;
> >>>> struct sync_pt;
> >>>>@@ -40,8 +41,6 @@ struct sync_fence;
> >>>> * -1 if a will signal before b
> >>>> * @free_pt: called before sync_pt is freed
> >>>> * @release_obj: called before sync_timeline is freed
> >>>>- * @print_obj: deprecated
> >>>>- * @print_pt: deprecated
> >>>> * @fill_driver_data: write implementation specific driver data to data.
> >>>> * should return an error if there is not enough room
> >>>> * as specified by size. This information is returned
> >>>>@@ -67,13 +66,6 @@ struct sync_timeline_ops {
> >>>> /* optional */
> >>>> void (*release_obj)(struct sync_timeline *sync_timeline);
> >>>>
> >>>>- /* deprecated */
> >>>>- void (*print_obj)(struct seq_file *s,
> >>>>- struct sync_timeline *sync_timeline);
> >>>>-
> >>>>- /* deprecated */
> >>>>- void (*print_pt)(struct seq_file *s, struct sync_pt *sync_pt);
> >>>>-
> >>>> /* optional */
> >>>> int (*fill_driver_data)(struct sync_pt *syncpt, void *data, int size);
> >>>>
> >>>>@@ -104,42 +96,48 @@ struct sync_timeline {
> >>>>
> >>>> /* protected by child_list_lock */
> >>>> bool destroyed;
> >>>>+ int context, value;
> >>>>
> >>>> struct list_head child_list_head;
> >>>> spinlock_t child_list_lock;
> >>>>
> >>>> struct list_head active_list_head;
> >>>>- spinlock_t active_list_lock;
> >>>>
> >>>>+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> >>>> struct list_head sync_timeline_list;
> >>>>+#endif
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> /**
> >>>> * struct sync_pt - sync point
> >>>>- * @parent: sync_timeline to which this sync_pt belongs
> >>>>+ * @fence: base fence class
> >>>> * @child_list: membership in sync_timeline.child_list_head
> >>>> * @active_list: membership in sync_timeline.active_list_head
> >>>>+<<<<<<< current
> >>>> * @signaled_list: membership in temporary signaled_list on stack
> >>>> * @fence: sync_fence to which the sync_pt belongs
> >>>> * @pt_list: membership in sync_fence.pt_list_head
> >>>> * @status: 1: signaled, 0:active, <0: error
> >>>> * @timestamp: time which sync_pt status transitioned from active to
> >>>> * signaled or error.
> >>>>+=======
> >>>>+>>>>>>> patched
> >>>Conflict markers ...
> >>Oops.
> >>>> */
> >>>> struct sync_pt {
> >>>>- struct sync_timeline *parent;
> >>>>- struct list_head child_list;
> >>>>+ struct fence base;
> >>>Hm, embedding feels wrong, since that still means that I'll need to
> >>>implement two kinds of fences in i915 - one using the seqno fence to make
> >>>dma-buf sync work, and one to implmenent sync_pt to make the android folks
> >>>happy.
> >>>
> >>>If I can dream I think we should have a pointer to an underlying fence
> >>>here, i.e. a struct sync_pt would just be a userspace interface wrapper to
> >>>do explicit syncing using native fences, instead of implicit syncing like
> >>>with dma-bufs. But this is all drive-by comments from a very cursory
> >>>high-level look. I might be full of myself again ;-)
> >>>-Daniel
> >>>
> >>No, the idea is that because android syncpoint is simply another type of
> >>dma-fence, that if you deal with normal fences then android can
> >>automatically be handled too. The userspace fence api android exposes
> >>could be very easily made to work for dma-fence, just pass a dma-fence
> >>to sync_fence_create.
> >>So exposing dma-fence would probably work for android too.
> >Hm, then why do we still have struct sync_pt around? Since it's just the
> >internal bit, with the userspace facing object being struct sync_fence,
> >I'd opt to shuffle any useful features into the core struct fence.
> >-Daniel
> To keep compatibility with the android api. I think that gradually converting them is going to be
> more useful than to force all drivers to use a new api all at once. They could keep android
> syncpoint api for exporting, as long as they accept dma-fence for importing/waiting.
We don't have any users of the android sync_pt stuff (outside of the
framework itself). So any considerations for existing drivers for
upstreaming are imo moot. At least for the in-kernel interfaces used. For
the actual userspace interface I guess keeping the android syncpt ioctls
as-is has value, at least if we conclude that their not badly broken. In
which case we need to fix that before moving it out of staging.
Or are we just talking past each another here?
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
