On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:10:57PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > From: Lucas Stach <dev@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <dev@xxxxxxxxxx> > [acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx: make conditional and platform-friendly] > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> Perhaps having a propery commit message here would be good. > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c [...] > +#ifdef NOUVEAU_NEED_CACHE_SYNC > +void > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo) > +{ > + struct nouveau_device *device; > + struct ttm_tt *ttm = nvbo->bo.ttm; > + > + device = nouveau_dev(nouveau_bdev(ttm->bdev)->dev); > + > + if (nvbo->bo.ttm && nvbo->bo.ttm->caching_state == tt_cached) > + ttm_dma_tt_cache_sync_for_cpu((struct ttm_dma_tt *)nvbo->bo.ttm, > + nv_device_base(device)); Can we be certain at this point that the struct ttm_tt is in fact a struct ttm_dma_tt? > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.h [...] > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA) > +#define NOUVEAU_NEED_CACHE_SYNC > +#endif I know I gave this as an example myself when we discussed this offline, but I'm now thinking that this might actually be better off in Kconfig. > +#ifdef NOUVEAU_NEED_CACHE_SYNC > +void nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *); > +void nouveau_bo_sync_for_device(struct nouveau_bo *); > +#else > +static inline void > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *) > +{ > +} > + > +static inline void > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_device(struct nouveau_bo *) > +{ > +} > +#endif > + > + There's a gratuituous blank line here. > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > index c90c0dc0afe8..b7e42fdc9634 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > @@ -897,7 +897,13 @@ nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > ret = ttm_bo_wait(&nvbo->bo, true, true, no_wait); > spin_unlock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); > drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(gem); > - return ret; > + > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(nvbo); > + > + return 0; > } This could be rewritten as: if (!ret) nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(nvbo); return ret; Which would be slightly shorter. On second thought, perhaps part of nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep() could be refactored into a separate function to make this more symmetric. If we put that in nouveau_bo.c and name it nouveau_bo_wait() for example, the dummies can go away and both nouveau_bo_sync_for_{cpu,device}() can be made static. I also think that's cleaner because it has both variants of the nouveau_bo_sync_for_*() calls in the same file. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpGIC5scX6ew.pgp
Description: PGP signature