Hi Thomas
On 16/12/21 5:05 pm, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 01.12.21 um 17:39 schrieb Arunpravin:
>> - Make drm_buddy_alloc a single function to handle
>> range allocation and non-range allocation demands
>>
>> - Implemented a new function alloc_range() which allocates
>> the requested power-of-two block comply with range limitations
>>
>> - Moved order computation and memory alignment logic from
>> i915 driver to drm buddy
>>
>> v2:
>> merged below changes to keep the build unbroken
>> - drm_buddy_alloc_range() becomes obsolete and may be removed
>> - enable ttm range allocation (fpfn / lpfn) support in i915 driver
>> - apply enhanced drm_buddy_alloc() function to i915 driver
>>
>> v3(Matthew Auld):
>> - Fix alignment issues and remove unnecessary list_empty check
>> - add more validation checks for input arguments
>> - make alloc_range() block allocations as bottom-up
>> - optimize order computation logic
>> - replace uint64_t with u64, which is preferred in the kernel
>>
>> v4(Matthew Auld):
>> - keep drm_buddy_alloc_range() function implementation for generic
>> actual range allocations
>> - keep alloc_range() implementation for end bias allocations
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@xxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
>> +#define DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION (1 << 0)
>> +
>> struct drm_buddy_block {
>> #define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_OFFSET GENMASK_ULL(63, 12)
>> #define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_STATE GENMASK_ULL(11, 10)
>> @@ -132,12 +139,11 @@ int drm_buddy_init(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, u64 size, u64 chunk_size);
>>
>> void drm_buddy_fini(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm);
>>
>> -struct drm_buddy_block *
>> -drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, unsigned int order);
>
> Just a style issue. The structure is called drm_buddy_mm. For
> consistency, I like to suggest to name all the public interfaces and
> defines drm_buddy_mm_* instead of just drm_buddy_*.
>
Thanks for the suggestion, I think renaming drm_buddy_* to
drm_buddy_mm_* creates a long name for the public interfaces, for
instance - drm_buddy_mm_alloc_blocks(),
discussing the style issue internally
@Matthew, @christian - please let me know your opinion
>
>> -
>> -int drm_buddy_alloc_range(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
>> - struct list_head *blocks,
>> - u64 start, u64 size);
>> +int drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
>> + u64 start, u64 end, u64 size,
>> + u64 min_page_size,
>> + struct list_head *blocks,
>> + unsigned long flags);
>>
>> void drm_buddy_free(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, struct drm_buddy_block *block);
>
> I'd call those *_alloc_blocks() and _free_blocks(). Right now it sounds
> as if they allocate and free instances of drm_buddy_mm.
can we call those drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() and drm_buddy_free_blocks()
Does this make sense?
>
> Best regards
> Thomas
>>
>>
>
