Cc+ i915 people
On Tue, Sep 17 2024 at 08:37, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:52:18AM -0700, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024, kernel test robot wrote:
>>
>> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.h:21:47: error: macro "seqprop_sequence" requires 2 arguments, but only 1 given
>>
>> From 15d86bc9589f16947c5fb0f34d2947eacd48f853 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:44:16 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH] Update Intel DRM use of seqprop_sequence
>>
>> One of Intels drivers uses seqprop_sequence() for its tlb sequencing.
>> We added a parameter so that we can use acquire. Its pretty safe to
>> assume that this will work without acquire.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.h
>> index 337327af92ac..81998c4cd4fb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.h
>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ void intel_gt_fini_tlb(struct intel_gt *gt);
>>
>> static inline u32 intel_gt_tlb_seqno(const struct intel_gt *gt)
>> {
>> - return seqprop_sequence(>->tlb.seqno);
>> + return seqprop_sequence(>->tlb.seqno, false);
>> }
>
> Yikes, why is the driver using the seqlock internals here? It's a bit of
> a pity, as a quick grep suggest that this is the _only_ user of
> 'seqcount_mutex_t', yet it's still having to work around the API.
Why the hell can't i915 use the proper interfaces and has to bypass the
core code? Just because C allows that does not make it correct.
Can the i915 people please remove this blatant violation of layering?
Thanks,
tglx
