On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/11/2014 04:31 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding >>>> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be >>>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the >>>>>> corresponding registers do not exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19 >>>>>> +++++++++++++------ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object) >>>>>> if (ret) >>>>>> return ret; >>>>>> >>>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */ >>>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea) >>>>>> + goto skip_clk_init; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better >>>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct >>>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or >>>>> similar. >>>>> >>>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra >>>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in >>>>> newer generations. >>>> >>>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd >>>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for >>>> GM107. >>>> >>>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the >>>> probe patch) here too. >>> >>> >>> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw, >>> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c >>> instead of gk20a.c? >> >> For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're >> working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names >> for things ;) > > > So would you like us to use the same naming scheme as well? So far all my > patches use "nvea.c" whenever I need to add code. If it's not too much of a problem at this point, then that'd be good. Right before I send -next for the next merge window I'll likely do a mass rename anyway, so if we can get your patches merged before then (which would be really good!), it doesn't matter much. Ben. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
