23.03.2021 19:44, Thierry Reding пишет:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:00:30PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 23.03.2021 15:30, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:34:22PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>>>> On 1/14/21 10:36 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> 13.01.2021 21:56, Mikko Perttunen пишет:
>>>>>> On 1/13/21 8:14 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>> 11.01.2021 16:00, Mikko Perttunen пишет:
>>>>>>>> +struct drm_tegra_submit_buf {
>>>>>>>> + /**
>>>>>>>> + * @mapping_id: [in]
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Identifier of the mapping to use in the submission.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> + __u32 mapping_id;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm now in process of trying out the UAPI using grate drivers and this
>>>>>>> becomes the first obstacle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like this is not going to work well for older Tegra SoCs, in
>>>>>>> particular for T20, which has a small GART.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that the usefulness of the partial mapping feature is very
>>>>>>> questionable until it will be proven with a real userspace, we should
>>>>>>> start with a dynamic mappings that are done at a time of job submission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DRM already should have everything necessary for creating and managing
>>>>>>> caches of mappings, grate kernel driver has been using drm_mm_scan for a
>>>>>>> long time now for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should be fine to support the static mapping feature, but it should
>>>>>>> be done separately with the drm_mm integration, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you elaborate on the requirements to be able to use GART? Are there
>>>>>> any other reasons this would not work on older chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> We have all DRM devices in a single address space on T30+, hence having
>>>>> duplicated mappings for each device should be a bit wasteful.
>>>>
>>>> I guess this should be pretty easy to change to only keep one mapping per
>>>> GEM object.
>>>
>>> The important point here is the semantics: this IOCTL establishes a
>>> mapping for a given GEM object on a given channel. If the underlying
>>> implementation is such that the mapping doesn't fit into the GART, then
>>> that's an implementation detail that the driver needs to take care of.
>>> Similarly, if multiple devices share a single address space, that's
>>> something the driver already knows and can take advantage of by simply
>>> reusing an existing mapping if one already exists. In both cases the
>>> semantics would be correctly implemented and that's really all that
>>> matters.
>>>
>>> Overall this interface seems sound from a high-level point of view and
>>> allows these mappings to be properly created even for the cases we have
>>> where each channel may have a separate address space. It may not be the
>>> optimal interface for all use-cases or any one individual case, but the
>>> very nature of these interfaces is to abstract away certain differences
>>> in order to provide a unified interface to a common programming model.
>>> So there will always be certain tradeoffs.
>>
>> For now this IOCTL isn't useful from a userspace perspective of older
>> SoCs and I'll need to add a lot of code that won't do anything useful
>> just to conform to the specific needs of the newer SoCs. Trying to unify
>> everything into a single API doesn't sound like a good idea at this
>> point and I already suggested to Mikko to try out variant with a
>> separated per-SoC code paths in the next version, then the mappings
>> could be handled separately by the T186+ paths.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Obviously the underlying
> implementation of this might have to differ depending on SoC generation.
> But it sounds like you're suggesting having different UAPIs depending on
> SoC generation.
I suggested that this IOCTL shouldn't be mandatory for older SoCs, which
we should to have anyways for preserving the older UAPI. Yes, this makes
UAPI different and I want to see how it will look like in the next
version since the current variant was sub-optimal.
