lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/12] drm/nouveau/timer: skip calibration on GK20A
    On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
    > <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
    >>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
    >>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
    >>> corresponding registers do not exist.
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
    >>> ---
    >>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
    >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
    >>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
    >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
    >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
    >>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
    >>> if (ret)
    >>> return ret;
    >>>
    >>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
    >>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
    >>> + goto skip_clk_init;
    >>
    >> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
    >> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
    >> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
    >> similar.
    >>
    >> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
    >> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
    >> newer generations.
    > I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
    > previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
    > GM107.
    >
    > Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
    > probe patch) here too.

    I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
    shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
    instead of gk20a.c?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-04-11 05:21    [W:4.043 / U:0.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site