On 20/07/2020 16:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-20 12:23:35)
On 20/07/2020 10:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
-void intel_engine_init_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
+struct intel_breadcrumbs *
+intel_breadcrumbs_create(struct intel_engine_cs *irq_engine)
{
- struct intel_breadcrumbs *b = &engine->breadcrumbs;
+ struct intel_breadcrumbs *b;
+
+ b = kzalloc(sizeof(*b), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!b)
+ return NULL;
spin_lock_init(&b->irq_lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&b->signalers);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&b->signaled_requests);
init_irq_work(&b->irq_work, signal_irq_work);
+
+ b->irq_engine = irq_engine;
+ if (!irq_engine)
+ b->irq_armed = true; /* fake HW, used for irq_work */
Disarm is checking for !b->irq_engine and arm asserts there must be when
arming. If instead arm would abort on !b->irq_engine would it all work
just as well without the need for this hack?
Yes, it is asymmetric. I thought keeping the asymmetry in place for the
conversion would be simpler, but didn't really make an attempt to make
irq_armed behave as one would expect.
You think it's not as simple as early return in arm if on irq engine?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
