| Message ID | 1432774660-9772-1-git-send-email-jy0922.shim@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote: > This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call > drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in > drmOpenWithType function. > Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ? -Emil
It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway because name is NULL. On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote: > > This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call > > drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in > > drmOpenWithType function. > > > Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If > that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ? > > -Emil > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier. If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options: - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the module for us, or - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded. So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that sound ? Thanks Emil On 28 May 2015 at 15:15, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@google.com> wrote: > It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway > because name is NULL. > > On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote: >> > This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call >> > drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in >> > drmOpenWithType function. >> > >> Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If >> that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ? >> >> -Emil >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier. > > If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options: > - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the > module for us, or > - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be > able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded. > > So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, > rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that > sound ? > I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device is open only once when call drmOpenWithType(). > Thanks > Emil > > On 28 May 2015 at 15:15, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@google.com> wrote: >> It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway >> because name is NULL. >> >> On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote: >>>> This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call >>>> drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in >>>> drmOpenWithType function. >>>> >>> Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If >>> that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ? >>> >>> -Emil >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dri-devel mailing list >>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
On 29 May 2015 at 07:50, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote: > On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier. >> >> If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options: >> - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the >> module for us, or >> - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be >> able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded. >> >> So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, >> rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that >> sound ? >> > > I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO > it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or > drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device > is open only once when call drmOpenWithType(). > Seems that checking via drmAvailable() is quicker than going through the whole drmOpen*. On the other side the former does not cater for render only devices... fun. Seems like this is the price to pay, considering that our current libdrm caters after both UMS(DRI1) and KMS(DRI2+) drivers. In the kernel we did have some nice cleanup (props to Daniel V and others) although in the userspace side things are less polished. Perhaps we can get libdrm 3 soon or start annotating the old functions as depreciated ? Curious if one should add libdrm_ancient.so (or similar) to ensure that things don't break when building old apps against new libdrm ? TLDR: No objections against the patch, but we should consider cleaning/splitting the ancient APIs. -Emil
On 05/30/2015 10:20 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 29 May 2015 at 07:50, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote: >> On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier. >>> >>> If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options: >>> - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the >>> module for us, or >>> - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be >>> able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded. >>> >>> So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious, >>> rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that >>> sound ? >>> >> >> I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO >> it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or >> drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device >> is open only once when call drmOpenWithType(). >> > Seems that checking via drmAvailable() is quicker than going through > the whole drmOpen*. On the other side the former does not cater for > render only devices... fun. > If want to check via drmAvailable(), we can call it regardless of drmOpen*. > Seems like this is the price to pay, considering that our current > libdrm caters after both UMS(DRI1) and KMS(DRI2+) drivers. In the > kernel we did have some nice cleanup (props to Daniel V and others) > although in the userspace side things are less polished. > > Perhaps we can get libdrm 3 soon or start annotating the old functions > as depreciated ? Curious if one should add libdrm_ancient.so (or > similar) to ensure that things don't break when building old apps > against new libdrm ? > > TLDR: No objections against the patch, but we should consider > cleaning/splitting the ancient APIs. > Agree but what i wanted to say is just to remove unnecessary to open DRM device in drmOpen*.
diff --git a/xf86drm.c b/xf86drm.c index b5a174b..900e4b1 100644 --- a/xf86drm.c +++ b/xf86drm.c @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ int drmOpen(const char *name, const char *busid) */ int drmOpenWithType(const char *name, const char *busid, int type) { - if (!drmAvailable() && name != NULL && drm_server_info) { + if (name != NULL && drm_server_info && !drmAvailable()) { /* try to load the kernel module */ if (!drm_server_info->load_module(name)) { drmMsg("[drm] failed to load kernel module \"%s\"\n", name);
This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in drmOpenWithType function. Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> --- xf86drm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)