Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2022 09:20:38 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] accel: add dedicated minor for accelerator devices | From | Jeffrey Hugo <> |
| |
On 11/6/2022 2:02 PM, Oded Gabbay wrote: > --- a/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c > +++ b/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c > @@ -8,14 +8,25 @@ > > #include <linux/debugfs.h> > #include <linux/device.h> > +#include <linux/xarray.h>
If we are not using xarray at this time, do we still need this include?
> > #include <drm/drm_accel.h> > +#include <drm/drm_debugfs.h> > +#include <drm/drm_drv.h> > +#include <drm/drm_file.h> > #include <drm/drm_ioctl.h> > #include <drm/drm_print.h> > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(accel_minor_lock); > +static struct idr accel_minors_idr;
I beleive we should have an explicit include for the IDR header.
> --- a/include/drm/drm_accel.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_accel.h > @@ -8,12 +8,56 @@ > #ifndef DRM_ACCEL_H_ > #define DRM_ACCEL_H_ > > -#define ACCEL_MAJOR 261 > +#include <drm/drm_file.h> > + > +#define ACCEL_MAJOR 261 > +#define ACCEL_MAX_MINORS 256
This diff seems really weird. The changes to the ACCEL_MAJOR define could get pushed to the previous patch, no?
> @@ -23,9 +67,31 @@ static inline void accel_core_exit(void) > > static inline int __init accel_core_init(void) > { > + /* Return 0 to allow drm_core_init to complete successfully */
Move to previous patch?
> --- a/include/drm/drm_drv.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_drv.h > @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ enum drm_driver_feature { > * synchronization of command submission. > */ > DRIVER_SYNCOBJ_TIMELINE = BIT(6), > + /** > + * @DRIVER_COMPUTE_ACCEL: > + * > + * Driver supports compute acceleration devices. This flag is mutually exclusive with > + * @DRIVER_RENDER and @DRIVER_MODESET. Devices that support both graphics and compute > + * acceleration should be handled by two drivers that are connected using auxiliry bus.
auxiliry -> auxiliary
| |