| Message ID | 20220105100520.976092-2-jani.nikula@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] drm/i915: move i915_reg_read_ioctl declaration to intel_uncore.h | expand |
On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: > Follow the usual naming convention. But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as the first argument. Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could be made for either way. Regards, Tvrtko > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 2 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h | 4 ++-- > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > index 95174938b160..f9a494e159dc 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > @@ -1805,7 +1805,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = { > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT, i915_gem_context_create_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_DESTROY, i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > - DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, i915_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > + DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_RESET_STATS, i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_USERPTR, i915_gem_userptr_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM, i915_gem_context_getparam_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > index fc25ebf1a593..33f95bb2d3d5 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > @@ -2269,8 +2269,8 @@ static const struct reg_whitelist { > .size = 8 > } }; > > -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > - void *data, struct drm_file *file) > +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > + void *data, struct drm_file *file) > { > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(dev); > struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore; > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h > index 3a87bbd906f8..697ac4586159 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h > @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ static inline int intel_uncore_write_and_verify(struct intel_uncore *uncore, > #define raw_reg_write(base, reg, value) \ > writel(value, base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg)) > > -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > - struct drm_file *file); > +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > + struct drm_file *file); > > #endif /* !__INTEL_UNCORE_H__ */ >
On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Follow the usual naming convention. > > But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as > the first argument. > > Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in > intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could > be made for either way. My position is that the function and file prefixes go hand in hand. You'll always know where to place a function, and you'll always know where the function is to be found. If you can *also* make the context argument follow the pattern, it's obviously better, and indicates the division to files is working out nicely. However, in a lot of cases you'll need to pass struct drm_i915_private or similar as the first parameter to e.g. init functions. It can't be the rigid rule. I'm fine with moving the entire function somewhere else, as long as the declaration is not in i915_drv.h. There's no longer a i915_drv.c, and i915_drv.h should not have function declarations at all. BR, Jani. > > Regards, > > Tvrtko > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 2 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h | 4 ++-- >> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >> index 95174938b160..f9a494e159dc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >> @@ -1805,7 +1805,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = { >> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT, i915_gem_context_create_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_DESTROY, i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> - DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, i915_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> + DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_RESET_STATS, i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_USERPTR, i915_gem_userptr_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM, i915_gem_context_getparam_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >> index fc25ebf1a593..33f95bb2d3d5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >> @@ -2269,8 +2269,8 @@ static const struct reg_whitelist { >> .size = 8 >> } }; >> >> -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >> - void *data, struct drm_file *file) >> +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >> + void *data, struct drm_file *file) >> { >> struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(dev); >> struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore; >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >> index 3a87bbd906f8..697ac4586159 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >> @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ static inline int intel_uncore_write_and_verify(struct intel_uncore *uncore, >> #define raw_reg_write(base, reg, value) \ >> writel(value, base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg)) >> >> -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >> - struct drm_file *file); >> +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >> + struct drm_file *file); >> >> #endif /* !__INTEL_UNCORE_H__ */ >>
On 05/01/2022 10:32, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> Follow the usual naming convention. >> >> But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as >> the first argument. >> >> Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in >> intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could >> be made for either way. > > My position is that the function and file prefixes go hand in > hand. You'll always know where to place a function, and you'll always > know where the function is to be found. > > If you can *also* make the context argument follow the pattern, it's > obviously better, and indicates the division to files is working out > nicely. However, in a lot of cases you'll need to pass struct > drm_i915_private or similar as the first parameter to e.g. init > functions. It can't be the rigid rule. > > I'm fine with moving the entire function somewhere else, as long as the > declaration is not in i915_drv.h. There's no longer a i915_drv.c, and > i915_drv.h should not have function declarations at all. Yes I agree it cannot be a rigid rule. I just that it feels intel_uncore.[hc] is too low level to me to hold an ioctl implementation, and header actually feels wrong to have the declaration. Not least it is about _one_ of the uncores, while the ioctl is not operating on that level, albeit undefined at the moment how exactly it would work for multi-tile. Would it be too early, or unwarranted at this point, to maybe consider adding i915_ioctls.[hc]? I like the i915_ prefix of ioctls for consistency.. i915_getparam_ioctl, i915_query_ioctl, i915_perf_..., i915_gem_.... Regards, Tvrtko > > BR, > Jani. > >> >> Regards, >> >> Tvrtko >> >>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++-- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h | 4 ++-- >>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >>> index 95174938b160..f9a494e159dc 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >>> @@ -1805,7 +1805,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = { >>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT, i915_gem_context_create_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_DESTROY, i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> - DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, i915_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> + DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_RESET_STATS, i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_USERPTR, i915_gem_userptr_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM, i915_gem_context_getparam_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >>> index fc25ebf1a593..33f95bb2d3d5 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >>> @@ -2269,8 +2269,8 @@ static const struct reg_whitelist { >>> .size = 8 >>> } }; >>> >>> -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >>> - void *data, struct drm_file *file) >>> +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >>> + void *data, struct drm_file *file) >>> { >>> struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(dev); >>> struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore; >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >>> index 3a87bbd906f8..697ac4586159 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >>> @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ static inline int intel_uncore_write_and_verify(struct intel_uncore *uncore, >>> #define raw_reg_write(base, reg, value) \ >>> writel(value, base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg)) >>> >>> -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >>> - struct drm_file *file); >>> +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >>> + struct drm_file *file); >>> >>> #endif /* !__INTEL_UNCORE_H__ */ >>> >
On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 05/01/2022 10:32, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>> Follow the usual naming convention. >>> >>> But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as >>> the first argument. >>> >>> Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in >>> intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could >>> be made for either way. >> >> My position is that the function and file prefixes go hand in >> hand. You'll always know where to place a function, and you'll always >> know where the function is to be found. >> >> If you can *also* make the context argument follow the pattern, it's >> obviously better, and indicates the division to files is working out >> nicely. However, in a lot of cases you'll need to pass struct >> drm_i915_private or similar as the first parameter to e.g. init >> functions. It can't be the rigid rule. >> >> I'm fine with moving the entire function somewhere else, as long as the >> declaration is not in i915_drv.h. There's no longer a i915_drv.c, and >> i915_drv.h should not have function declarations at all. > > Yes I agree it cannot be a rigid rule. I just that it feels > intel_uncore.[hc] is too low level to me to hold an ioctl > implementation, and header actually feels wrong to have the declaration. > Not least it is about _one_ of the uncores, while the ioctl is not > operating on that level, albeit undefined at the moment how exactly it > would work for multi-tile. > > Would it be too early, or unwarranted at this point, to maybe consider > adding i915_ioctls.[hc]? Then the conversation would be about putting together a ton of unrelated functions where the only thing in common is that they're an ioctl implementation. Arguably many of them would have less in common than the reg read ioctl has with uncore! And when is it okay to put an ioctl in the i915_ioctls.c file and when is it warranted to put it somewhere else? It's just a different set of problems. > I like the i915_ prefix of ioctls for consistency.. i915_getparam_ioctl, > i915_query_ioctl, i915_perf_..., i915_gem_.... The display ioctls have intel_ prefix anyway. It's the _ioctl suffix that we use. Again, my main driver here is cleaning up i915_drv.h. I can shove the reg read ioctl somewhere other than intel_uncore.[ch] too. But as it stands, the only alternative that seems better than intel_uncore.[ch] at the moment is adding a dedicated file for a 60-line function. BR, Jani. > > Regards, > > Tvrtko > >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Tvrtko >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 2 +- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++-- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h | 4 ++-- >>>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >>>> index 95174938b160..f9a494e159dc 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >>>> @@ -1805,7 +1805,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = { >>>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT, i915_gem_context_create_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_DESTROY, i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> - DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, i915_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> + DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_RESET_STATS, i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_USERPTR, i915_gem_userptr_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM, i915_gem_context_getparam_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >>>> index fc25ebf1a593..33f95bb2d3d5 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c >>>> @@ -2269,8 +2269,8 @@ static const struct reg_whitelist { >>>> .size = 8 >>>> } }; >>>> >>>> -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >>>> - void *data, struct drm_file *file) >>>> +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >>>> + void *data, struct drm_file *file) >>>> { >>>> struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(dev); >>>> struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore; >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >>>> index 3a87bbd906f8..697ac4586159 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h >>>> @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ static inline int intel_uncore_write_and_verify(struct intel_uncore *uncore, >>>> #define raw_reg_write(base, reg, value) \ >>>> writel(value, base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg)) >>>> >>>> -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >>>> - struct drm_file *file); >>>> +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >>>> + struct drm_file *file); >>>> >>>> #endif /* !__INTEL_UNCORE_H__ */ >>>> >>
On 05/01/2022 13:18, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 05/01/2022 10:32, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>> On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>> Follow the usual naming convention. >>>> >>>> But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as >>>> the first argument. >>>> >>>> Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in >>>> intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could >>>> be made for either way. >>> >>> My position is that the function and file prefixes go hand in >>> hand. You'll always know where to place a function, and you'll always >>> know where the function is to be found. >>> >>> If you can *also* make the context argument follow the pattern, it's >>> obviously better, and indicates the division to files is working out >>> nicely. However, in a lot of cases you'll need to pass struct >>> drm_i915_private or similar as the first parameter to e.g. init >>> functions. It can't be the rigid rule. >>> >>> I'm fine with moving the entire function somewhere else, as long as the >>> declaration is not in i915_drv.h. There's no longer a i915_drv.c, and >>> i915_drv.h should not have function declarations at all. >> >> Yes I agree it cannot be a rigid rule. I just that it feels >> intel_uncore.[hc] is too low level to me to hold an ioctl >> implementation, and header actually feels wrong to have the declaration. >> Not least it is about _one_ of the uncores, while the ioctl is not >> operating on that level, albeit undefined at the moment how exactly it >> would work for multi-tile. >> >> Would it be too early, or unwarranted at this point, to maybe consider >> adding i915_ioctls.[hc]? > > Then the conversation would be about putting together a ton of unrelated > functions where the only thing in common is that they're an ioctl > implementation. Arguably many of them would have less in common than the > reg read ioctl has with uncore! I imagined it as a place for ioctls which don't fit anywhere else, like it this case it is not a family of ioctls but and odd one out. So yes, first "problem" would be there is only one to put there and no line of sight for others. > And when is it okay to put an ioctl in the i915_ioctls.c file and when > is it warranted to put it somewhere else? It's just a different set of > problems. When it does not fit anywhere else? >> I like the i915_ prefix of ioctls for consistency.. i915_getparam_ioctl, >> i915_query_ioctl, i915_perf_..., i915_gem_.... > > The display ioctls have intel_ prefix anyway. It's the _ioctl suffix > that we use. > > Again, my main driver here is cleaning up i915_drv.h. I can shove the > reg read ioctl somewhere other than intel_uncore.[ch] too. But as it > stands, the only alternative that seems better than intel_uncore.[ch] at > the moment is adding a dedicated file for a 60-line function. I understand your motivation and I wouldn't nack your efforts, but I also cannot yet make myself ack it. Is 60 lines so bad? Lets see.. $ find . -name "*.c" -print0 | xargs -0 wc -l | sort -nr ... 59 ./selftests/mock_request.c 59 ./gt/uc/intel_uc_debugfs.c 59 ./gem/i915_gemfs.c 52 ./selftests/igt_mmap.c 51 ./selftests/igt_reset.c 49 ./selftests/mock_uncore.c 47 ./selftests/igt_atomic.c 36 ./gt/uc/intel_huc_debugfs.c 36 ./gt/intel_gt_engines_debugfs.c 35 ./selftests/igt_flush_test.c 34 ./selftests/librapl.c 34 ./gvt/trace_points.c 29 ./gt/selftests/mock_timeline.c 27 ./gt/selftest_engine.c 26 ./gt/uc/intel_huc_fw.c 15 ./i915_config.c 14 ./i915_trace_points.c 9 ./display/intel_display_trace.c So kind of meh, wouldn't be first. I'd add a dedicated file just for the benefit of being able to legitimately keep the i915_reg_read_ioctl name. Come multi-tile it may get company. Even though at the moment I am not aware anyone is trying to add multi-tile aware reg read, but I expect there will be need as long as need for the existing one exists. Regards, Tvrtko
On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 05/01/2022 13:18, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> On 05/01/2022 10:32, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>>> On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>>> Follow the usual naming convention. >>>>> >>>>> But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as >>>>> the first argument. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in >>>>> intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could >>>>> be made for either way. >>>> >>>> My position is that the function and file prefixes go hand in >>>> hand. You'll always know where to place a function, and you'll always >>>> know where the function is to be found. >>>> >>>> If you can *also* make the context argument follow the pattern, it's >>>> obviously better, and indicates the division to files is working out >>>> nicely. However, in a lot of cases you'll need to pass struct >>>> drm_i915_private or similar as the first parameter to e.g. init >>>> functions. It can't be the rigid rule. >>>> >>>> I'm fine with moving the entire function somewhere else, as long as the >>>> declaration is not in i915_drv.h. There's no longer a i915_drv.c, and >>>> i915_drv.h should not have function declarations at all. >>> >>> Yes I agree it cannot be a rigid rule. I just that it feels >>> intel_uncore.[hc] is too low level to me to hold an ioctl >>> implementation, and header actually feels wrong to have the declaration. >>> Not least it is about _one_ of the uncores, while the ioctl is not >>> operating on that level, albeit undefined at the moment how exactly it >>> would work for multi-tile. >>> >>> Would it be too early, or unwarranted at this point, to maybe consider >>> adding i915_ioctls.[hc]? >> >> Then the conversation would be about putting together a ton of unrelated >> functions where the only thing in common is that they're an ioctl >> implementation. Arguably many of them would have less in common than the >> reg read ioctl has with uncore! > > I imagined it as a place for ioctls which don't fit anywhere else, like > it this case it is not a family of ioctls but and odd one out. So yes, > first "problem" would be there is only one to put there and no line of > sight for others. > >> And when is it okay to put an ioctl in the i915_ioctls.c file and when >> is it warranted to put it somewhere else? It's just a different set of >> problems. > > When it does not fit anywhere else? > >>> I like the i915_ prefix of ioctls for consistency.. i915_getparam_ioctl, >>> i915_query_ioctl, i915_perf_..., i915_gem_.... >> >> The display ioctls have intel_ prefix anyway. It's the _ioctl suffix >> that we use. >> >> Again, my main driver here is cleaning up i915_drv.h. I can shove the >> reg read ioctl somewhere other than intel_uncore.[ch] too. But as it >> stands, the only alternative that seems better than intel_uncore.[ch] at >> the moment is adding a dedicated file for a 60-line function. > > I understand your motivation and I wouldn't nack your efforts, but I > also cannot yet make myself ack it. Is 60 lines so bad? Lets see.. > > $ find . -name "*.c" -print0 | xargs -0 wc -l | sort -nr > ... > 59 ./selftests/mock_request.c > 59 ./gt/uc/intel_uc_debugfs.c > 59 ./gem/i915_gemfs.c > 52 ./selftests/igt_mmap.c > 51 ./selftests/igt_reset.c > 49 ./selftests/mock_uncore.c > 47 ./selftests/igt_atomic.c > 36 ./gt/uc/intel_huc_debugfs.c > 36 ./gt/intel_gt_engines_debugfs.c > 35 ./selftests/igt_flush_test.c > 34 ./selftests/librapl.c > 34 ./gvt/trace_points.c > 29 ./gt/selftests/mock_timeline.c > 27 ./gt/selftest_engine.c > 26 ./gt/uc/intel_huc_fw.c > 15 ./i915_config.c > 14 ./i915_trace_points.c > 9 ./display/intel_display_trace.c > > So kind of meh, wouldn't be first. I'd add a dedicated file just for the > benefit of being able to legitimately keep the i915_reg_read_ioctl name. > Come multi-tile it may get company. Even though at the moment I am not > aware anyone is trying to add multi-tile aware reg read, but I expect > there will be need as long as need for the existing one exists. So this got stalled a bit, and sidestepped from the main goal of just cleaning up i915_drv.h from the clutter that absolutely does not belong there. Can we just merge patch 1, leave further cleanup to follow-up, and move on? BR, Jani.
On 19/01/2022 11:12, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 05/01/2022 13:18, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>> On 05/01/2022 10:32, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 05/01/2022 10:05, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>>>> Follow the usual naming convention. >>>>>> >>>>>> But intel_uncore_ prefix usually means functions takes intel_uncore as >>>>>> the first argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe solution here is that i915_reg_read_ioctl does not belong in >>>>>> intel_uncore.c, it being the UAPI layer thing? I guess arguments could >>>>>> be made for either way. >>>>> >>>>> My position is that the function and file prefixes go hand in >>>>> hand. You'll always know where to place a function, and you'll always >>>>> know where the function is to be found. >>>>> >>>>> If you can *also* make the context argument follow the pattern, it's >>>>> obviously better, and indicates the division to files is working out >>>>> nicely. However, in a lot of cases you'll need to pass struct >>>>> drm_i915_private or similar as the first parameter to e.g. init >>>>> functions. It can't be the rigid rule. >>>>> >>>>> I'm fine with moving the entire function somewhere else, as long as the >>>>> declaration is not in i915_drv.h. There's no longer a i915_drv.c, and >>>>> i915_drv.h should not have function declarations at all. >>>> >>>> Yes I agree it cannot be a rigid rule. I just that it feels >>>> intel_uncore.[hc] is too low level to me to hold an ioctl >>>> implementation, and header actually feels wrong to have the declaration. >>>> Not least it is about _one_ of the uncores, while the ioctl is not >>>> operating on that level, albeit undefined at the moment how exactly it >>>> would work for multi-tile. >>>> >>>> Would it be too early, or unwarranted at this point, to maybe consider >>>> adding i915_ioctls.[hc]? >>> >>> Then the conversation would be about putting together a ton of unrelated >>> functions where the only thing in common is that they're an ioctl >>> implementation. Arguably many of them would have less in common than the >>> reg read ioctl has with uncore! >> >> I imagined it as a place for ioctls which don't fit anywhere else, like >> it this case it is not a family of ioctls but and odd one out. So yes, >> first "problem" would be there is only one to put there and no line of >> sight for others. >> >>> And when is it okay to put an ioctl in the i915_ioctls.c file and when >>> is it warranted to put it somewhere else? It's just a different set of >>> problems. >> >> When it does not fit anywhere else? >> >>>> I like the i915_ prefix of ioctls for consistency.. i915_getparam_ioctl, >>>> i915_query_ioctl, i915_perf_..., i915_gem_.... >>> >>> The display ioctls have intel_ prefix anyway. It's the _ioctl suffix >>> that we use. >>> >>> Again, my main driver here is cleaning up i915_drv.h. I can shove the >>> reg read ioctl somewhere other than intel_uncore.[ch] too. But as it >>> stands, the only alternative that seems better than intel_uncore.[ch] at >>> the moment is adding a dedicated file for a 60-line function. >> >> I understand your motivation and I wouldn't nack your efforts, but I >> also cannot yet make myself ack it. Is 60 lines so bad? Lets see.. >> >> $ find . -name "*.c" -print0 | xargs -0 wc -l | sort -nr >> ... >> 59 ./selftests/mock_request.c >> 59 ./gt/uc/intel_uc_debugfs.c >> 59 ./gem/i915_gemfs.c >> 52 ./selftests/igt_mmap.c >> 51 ./selftests/igt_reset.c >> 49 ./selftests/mock_uncore.c >> 47 ./selftests/igt_atomic.c >> 36 ./gt/uc/intel_huc_debugfs.c >> 36 ./gt/intel_gt_engines_debugfs.c >> 35 ./selftests/igt_flush_test.c >> 34 ./selftests/librapl.c >> 34 ./gvt/trace_points.c >> 29 ./gt/selftests/mock_timeline.c >> 27 ./gt/selftest_engine.c >> 26 ./gt/uc/intel_huc_fw.c >> 15 ./i915_config.c >> 14 ./i915_trace_points.c >> 9 ./display/intel_display_trace.c >> >> So kind of meh, wouldn't be first. I'd add a dedicated file just for the >> benefit of being able to legitimately keep the i915_reg_read_ioctl name. >> Come multi-tile it may get company. Even though at the moment I am not >> aware anyone is trying to add multi-tile aware reg read, but I expect >> there will be need as long as need for the existing one exists. > > So this got stalled a bit, and sidestepped from the main goal of just > cleaning up i915_drv.h from the clutter that absolutely does not belong > there. > > Can we just merge patch 1, leave further cleanup to follow-up, and move > on? Sorry but I don't think the ioctl belongs in gt/intel_uncore.h either so I can't make myself ack it. But I am not nacking it either, as said before, if you find someone else to support it. I would add i915_ioctls.[ch] even if they hold just this one. Regards, Tvrtko
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c index 95174938b160..f9a494e159dc 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c @@ -1805,7 +1805,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = { DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT, i915_gem_context_create_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_DESTROY, i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), - DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, i915_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), + DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_REG_READ, intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_RESET_STATS, i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_USERPTR, i915_gem_userptr_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM, i915_gem_context_getparam_ioctl, DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c index fc25ebf1a593..33f95bb2d3d5 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c @@ -2269,8 +2269,8 @@ static const struct reg_whitelist { .size = 8 } }; -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, - void *data, struct drm_file *file) +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, + void *data, struct drm_file *file) { struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(dev); struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h index 3a87bbd906f8..697ac4586159 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ static inline int intel_uncore_write_and_verify(struct intel_uncore *uncore, #define raw_reg_write(base, reg, value) \ writel(value, base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg)) -int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, - struct drm_file *file); +int intel_uncore_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, + struct drm_file *file); #endif /* !__INTEL_UNCORE_H__ */
Follow the usual naming convention. Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++-- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)