On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 03:59:01PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2017-02-22 at 13:41 +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> > Trying to have subject_verb_object ordering and more descriptive names,
> > the intel_huc_init() and intel_guc_init() functions are renamed:
> >
> > * `intel_guc` is the subject, so those functions now take intel_guc
> > structure, instead of the dev_priv
> > * fetch is the verb
> > * fw is the object which better describes the function's role
> >
> > Same change is done for the huc counterpart.
> >
> > Also we bulk call both functions from higher-level intel_uc_fetch_fw:
> > * intel being the subject (taking the dev_priv as param)
> > * fetch being the verb
> > * uc_fw being the subject
> >
> > v2: settle on intel_uc_fetch_fw name (M. Wajdeczko)
> >
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > @@ -609,8 +609,7 @@ static int i915_load_modeset_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> > if (ret)
> > goto cleanup_irq;
> >
> > - intel_huc_init(dev_priv);
> > - intel_guc_init(dev_priv);
> > + intel_uc_fetch_fw(dev_priv);
>
> intel_uc_init fits this context. (See below)
Answer below.
>
> > /**
> > - * intel_guc_init() - define parameters and fetch firmware
> > - * @dev_priv: i915 device private
> > + * intel_guc_fetch_fw() - define parameters and fetch firmware
> > + * @guc: intel_guc struct
> > *
> > * Called early during driver load, but after GEM is initialised.
> > *
> > * The firmware will be transferred to the GuC's memory later,
> > * when intel_guc_init_hw() is called.
> > */
>
> "define parameters" is little vague, maybe "select and fetch firmware"?
I like those verbs. Let start using it through the whole thing!
>
> > -void intel_guc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +void intel_guc_fetch_fw(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > {
> > - struct intel_uc_fw *guc_fw = &dev_priv->guc.fw;
> > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc);
> > const char *fw_path;
> >
> > if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
>
> This parameter dance needs to be moved away from guc_fetch_fw function,
> into intel_sanitize_options (I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this
> earlier).
This is removed in patch 8, as the fetch_fw is called conditionally.
> > @@ -751,23 +751,23 @@ void intel_guc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > fw_path = NULL;
> > } else if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > fw_path = I915_SKL_GUC_UCODE;
> > - guc_fw->major_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MAJOR;
> > - guc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MINOR;
> > + guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MAJOR;
> > + guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MINOR;
> > } else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
> > fw_path = I915_BXT_GUC_UCODE;
> > - guc_fw->major_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MAJOR;
> > - guc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MINOR;
> > + guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MAJOR;
> > + guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MINOR;
> > } else if (IS_KABYLAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > fw_path = I915_KBL_GUC_UCODE;
> > - guc_fw->major_ver_wanted = KBL_FW_MAJOR;
> > - guc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = KBL_FW_MINOR;
> > + guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = KBL_FW_MAJOR;
> > + guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = KBL_FW_MINOR;
> > } else {
> > fw_path = ""; /* unknown device */
> > }
> >
> > - guc_fw->path = fw_path;
> > - guc_fw->fetch_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
> > - guc_fw->load_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
> > + guc->fw.path = fw_path;
>
> Just get rid of fw_path variable and assign directly, also hoist the
> warning to the else branch, which can then do "return;"
This is done done in patch 8.
> > + guc->fw.fetch_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
> > + guc->fw.load_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
>
> Hoist this assignment before the if block, so no need to special for
> the early return from else branch.
This is done done in patch 8.
> <SNIP>
>
> > /**
> > - * intel_huc_init() - initiate HuC firmware loading request
> > - * @dev_priv: the drm_i915_private device
> > + * intel_huc_fetch_fw() - initiate HuC firmware loading request
>
> Correct this commit too to be more descriptive.
Okay.
> > + * @huc: intel_huc struct
> > *
> > * Called early during driver load, but after GEM is initialised. The loading
> > * will continue only when driver explicitly specify firmware name and version.
> > @@ -152,42 +152,41 @@ static int huc_ucode_xfer(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > *
> > * The DMA-copying to HW is done later when intel_huc_init_hw() is called.
> > */
> > -void intel_huc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +void intel_huc_fetch_fw(struct intel_huc *huc)
> > {
> > - struct intel_huc *huc = &dev_priv->huc;
> > - struct intel_uc_fw *huc_fw = &huc->fw;
> > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = huc_to_i915(huc);
> > const char *fw_path = NULL;
>
> Similarly arrange to get rid of fw_path here.
Patch 8 in the series addresses that issue as well. Maybe I should move
them around?
> <SNIP>
>
> > @@ -30,6 +30,12 @@ void intel_uc_init_early(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > mutex_init(&dev_priv->guc.send_mutex);
> > }
> >
> > +void intel_uc_fetch_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>
> This function might be worth calling intel_uc_init (See above), if the
> need comes to add other stuff. But either way.
This is quite confusing now. I was fine it being named init, someone
suggested to be more descriptive with the name, as it is not general
enough to be "init". Seemed reasonable enough for me, so I incorporated
that in the respin.
This is turning into some heavy bikeshedding now...
I agree that it's more than fetch, it actually selects + fetches +
populates the structures.
I'll gladly ignore previous feedback on being to vague with name and
just go with init, but let give the _fw postfix one last chance:
intel_guc_init_fw {
intel_guc_select_fw
if (NULL != guc.fw.path)
intel_uc_prepare_fw
}
Where select does what the guc's fetch fw does sans the uc_fetch call.
Also intel_{g,h}uc_select_fw can be made part of the sanitize options,
but I think it better belongs here.
That's is basing on your suggestions for the other patch.
--
Cheers,
Arek
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
