On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:37:16PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 18/06/2019 16:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:36:14PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> Greg is busy already, but maybe he won't do everything ... > >> > >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/gpu/todo.rst | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/todo.rst b/Documentation/gpu/todo.rst > >> index 9717540ee28f..026e55c517e1 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/gpu/todo.rst > >> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/todo.rst > >> @@ -375,6 +375,9 @@ There's a bunch of issues with it: > >> this (together with the drm_minor->drm_device move) would allow us to remove > >> debugfs_init. > >> > >> +- Drop the return code and error checking from all debugfs functions. Greg KH is > >> + working on this already. > > > > > > Part of this work was to try to delete drm_debugfs_remove_files(). > > > > There are only 4 files that currently still call this function: > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dsi.c > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/hdmi.c > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c > > > > For dc.c, the driver wants to add debugfs files to the struct drm_crtc > > debugfs directory. Which is fine, but it has to do some special memory > > allocation to get the debugfs callback to point not to the struct > > drm_minor pointer, but rather the drm_crtc structure. > > > > So, to remove this call, I need to remove this special memory allocation > > and to do that, I need to somehow be able to cast from drm_minor back to > > the drm_crtc structure being used in this driver. And I can't figure > > how they are related at all. > > > > Any pointers here (pun intended) would be appreciated. > > > > For the other 3 files, the situation is much the same, but I need to get > > from a 'struct drm_minor' pointer to a 'struct drm_connector' pointer. > > > > I could just "open code" a bunch of calls to debugfs_create_file() for > > these drivers, which would solve this issue, but in a more "non-drm" > > way. Is it worth to just do that instead of overthinking the whole > > thing and trying to squish it into the drm "model" of drm debugfs calls? > > > > Either way, who can test these changes? I can't even build the tegra > > driver without digging up an arm64 cross-compiler, and can't test it as > > I have no hardware at all. > > We can definitely compile and boot test these no problem. In fact > anything that lands in -next we will boot test. However, I can do some > quick sanity if you have something to test. > > Thierry may have more specific Tegra DRM tests. We don't have any automated tests for this yet, unfortunately. Let me work on something. In the meantime I can manually test any of the patches that Greg sends out. These should be fairly trivial to test. It's difficult to check for success/failure on something like the register dump or the CRC, but I think for now we don't really need much more than just validating that things don't crash when we read one of these debugfs files. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
