Re: [PATCH v2 17/17] drm/i915: Split out load time interface registration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:11:20PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 19:55 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:31:42PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > According to the new init phases scheme we should register the
> > > device
> > > making it available via some kernel internal or user space
> > > interface as
> > > the last step in the init sequence, so move the corresponding code
> > > to a
> > > separate function.
> > > 
> > > Also add a TODO comment about code that still needs to be moved
> > > around
> > > to one of the init phases functions depending on what the role and
> > > effect
> > > of that code is.
> > > 
> > > No functional change, except for the reordering of the unload time
> > > unregistration steps of sysfs wrt. acpi and opregion.
> > > 
> > > Suggested by Chris.
> > > 
> > > CC: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > --------------
> > >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > index aaf1b17..43dcb5a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > @@ -1209,6 +1209,53 @@ static void i915_driver_cleanup_hw(struct
> > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > > + * i915_driver_init_register - register the driver with the rest
> > > of the system
> > > + * @dev_priv: device private
> > > + *
> > > + * Perform any steps necessary to make the driver available via
> > > kernel
> > > + * internal or userspace interfaces.
> > > + */
> > > +static void i915_driver_init_register(struct drm_i915_private
> > > *dev_priv)
> > 
> > This is the only one I didn't like. The problem with _register is
> > that
> > it makes me think of mmio register (yes, I know that's too
> > driver-centric and the use of register_callback_interface is
> > widespread.) A compromise would be
> > 
> > i915_driver_init_frameworks()
> 
> Ok, can rename it.
> 
> > Other than I got to here without spotting anything obnoxious or
> > troublematic wrt to mmio/gem. The only thing we lack is fault
> > injection
> > into igt/drv_module_reload, maybe we can do
> > 	i915.inject_fault = LOAD_MMIO | LOAD_FRAMEWORK etc
> > The other tricky part is deciding on what the failure should be. For
> > critical faults we just expect the module to fail to load, but for
> > aspects like GEM, we just want to the GPU to be disabled but
> > modesetting
> > still work.
> 
> Yep sounds useful, but can we do it as a follow-up?

I'd rather not. The question is how much of this churn is covered by
igt? I think the answer is scarily low, since half of this is error path
during init. Adding a module paramter and then checking bits in each of
the new phase functions is going to be a relatively simple job and lets
us have a little more confidence that the changes + fixes are solid.

The tricker part would be adding the loop over insmod i915.ko into
drv_module_reload_basic, but well worth the bugs it is likely to
uncover.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux