lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv4 0/8] Support for Tegra 2D hardware
On 28.12.2012 11:14, Mark Zhang wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr2d.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr2d.c
> index a936902..c3ded60 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr2d.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr2d.c
> @@ -131,6 +131,14 @@ static int gr2d_submit(struct tegra_drm_context
> *context,
> if (err)
> goto fail;
>
> + /* We define CMA as an temporary solution in host1x driver.
> + That's also why we have a CMA kernel config in it.
> + But seems here, in tegradrm, we hardcode the CMA here.
> + So what do you do when host1x change to IOMMU?
> + Do we also need to define a CMA config in tegradrm
> driver,
> + then after host1x changes to IOMMU, we add another IOMMU
> + config in tegradrm? Or we should invent another more
> + generic wrapper layer here? */
> cmdbuf.mem = handle_cma_to_host1x(drm, file_priv,
> cmdbuf.mem);

Lucas is working on host1x allocator, so let's defer this comment until
we have Lucas' code.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c
> index cc8ca2f..0867b72 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c
> @@ -82,6 +82,26 @@ struct host1x_job *host1x_job_alloc(struct
> host1x_channel *ch,
> mem += num_unpins * sizeof(dma_addr_t);
> job->pin_ids = num_unpins ? mem : NULL;
>
> + /* I think this is a somewhat ugly design.
> + Actually "addr_phys" is consisted by "reloc_addr_phys" and
> + "gather_addr_phys".
> + Why don't we just declare "reloc_addr_phys" and
> "gather_addr_phys"?
> + In current design, let's say if one nvhost newbie changes the
> order
> + of these 2 blocks of code in function "pin_job_mem":
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < job->num_relocs; i++) {
> + struct host1x_reloc *reloc = &job->relocarray[i];
> + job->pin_ids[count] = reloc->target;
> + count++;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < job->num_gathers; i++) {
> + struct host1x_job_gather *g = &job->gathers[i];
> + job->pin_ids[count] = g->mem_id;
> + count++;
> + }
> +
> + Then likely something weird occurs... */

We do this because this way we can implement batch pinning of memory
handles. This way we can decrease memory handle management a lot as we
need to do locking only once per submit.

Decreasing memory management overhead is really important, because in
complex graphics cases, there are might be a hundreds of buffer
references per submit, and several submits per frame. Any extra overhead
relates directly to reduced performance.

> job->reloc_addr_phys = job->addr_phys;
> job->gather_addr_phys = &job->addr_phys[num_relocs];
>
> @@ -252,6 +272,10 @@ static int do_relocs(struct host1x_job *job,
> }
> }
>
> + /* I have question here. Does this mean the address info
> + which need to be relocated(according to the libdrm codes,
> + seems this address is "0xDEADBEEF") always staying at the
> + beginning of a page? */
> __raw_writel(
> (job->reloc_addr_phys[i] +
> reloc->target_offset) >> reloc->shift,

No - the slot can be anywhere. That's why we have cmdbuf_offset in the
reloc struct.

> @@ -565,6 +589,7 @@ int host1x_job_pin(struct host1x_job *job, struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> }
> }
>
> + /* if (host1x_firewall && !err) { */
> if (host1x_firewall) {
> err = copy_gathers(job, pdev);
> if (err) {

Will add.

> @@ -573,6 +598,9 @@ int host1x_job_pin(struct host1x_job *job, struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> }
> }
>
> +/* Rename this label to "out" or something else.
> + Because if everything goes right, the codes under this label also
> + get executed. */
> fail:
> wmb();

Will do.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/memmgr.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/memmgr.c
> index f3954f7..bb5763d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/memmgr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/memmgr.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ int host1x_memmgr_pin_array_ids(struct
> platform_device *dev,
> count, &unpin_data[pin_count],
> phys_addr);
>
> + /* I don't think the current "host1x_cma_pin_array_ids"
> + is able to return a negative value. So this "if" doesn't
> + make sense...*/
> if (cma_count < 0) {
> /* clean up previous handles */
> while (pin_count) {

It should return negative in case of error.

Terje


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-02 11:21    [W:0.324 / U:5.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site