Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 04/27] drm: Don't test for IRQ support in VBLANK ioctls

Thierry Reding
2021-06-24T12:01:40Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2562 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:07:57AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 24.06.21 um 10:51 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Am 24.06.21 um 10:06 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > index 3417e1ac7918..10fe16bafcb6 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > @@ -1748,8 +1748,16 @@ int drm_wait_vblank_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > > > > unsigned int pipe_index;
> > > > > unsigned int flags, pipe, high_pipe;
> > > > > - if (!dev->irq_enabled)
> > > > > - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY)
> > > > > + if (unlikely(drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY))) {
> > > > > + if (!dev->irq_enabled)
> > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > + } else /* if DRIVER_MODESET */
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + if (!drm_dev_has_vblank(dev))
> > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Sheesh I hate this kind of inline #ifdefs.
> > > >
> > > > Two alternate suggestions that I believe should be as just efficient:
> > >
> > > Or how about:
> > >
> > > static bool drm_wait_vblank_supported(struct drm_device *dev)
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > if defined(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY)
> > > if (unlikely(drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)))
> > >
> > > return dev->irq_enabled;
> > >
> > > #endif
> > > return drm_dev_has_vblank(dev);
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > It's inline, but still readable.
> >
> > It's definitely better than the original, but it's unclear to me why
> > you'd prefer this over option 2) below. I guess the only reason I can
> > think of is emphasizing the conditional compilation. However,
> > IS_ENABLED() is widely used in this manner specifically to avoid inline
> > #if, and the compiler optimizes it away.
>
> It's simply more readable to me as the condition is simpler. But option 2 is
> also ok.

Perhaps do something like this, then:

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY)) {
if (unlikely(drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)))
return dev->irq_enabled;
}

return drm_dev_has_vblank(dev);

That's about just as readable as the variant involving the preprocessor
but has all the benefits of not using the preprocessor.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]