public inbox for intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
To: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
Cc: Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	DRI Devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 4/7] drm/i915/gt: create per-tile sysfs interface
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 23:30:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yi5iWtOzyMLFZWo/@intel.intel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yi5J1HB5uypRUIW+@intel.intel>

> > > > > +struct intel_gt *intel_gt_sysfs_get_drvdata(struct device *dev,
> > > > > +					    const char *name)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct kobject *kobj = &dev->kobj;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * We are interested at knowing from where the interface
> > > > > +	 * has been called, whether it's called from gt/ or from
> > > > > +	 * the parent directory.
> > > > > +	 * From the interface position it depends also the value of
> > > > > +	 * the private data.
> > > > > +	 * If the interface is called from gt/ then private data is
> > > > > +	 * of the "struct intel_gt *" type, otherwise it's * a
> > > > > +	 * "struct drm_i915_private *" type.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	if (!is_object_gt(kobj)) {
> > > > > +		struct drm_i915_private *i915 = kdev_minor_to_i915(dev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		pr_devel_ratelimited(DEPRECATED
> > > > > +			"%s (pid %d) is accessing deprecated %s "
> > > > > +			"sysfs control, please use gt/gt<n>/%s instead\n",
> > > > > +			current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), name, name);
> > > > > +		return to_gt(i915);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	return kobj_to_gt(kobj);
> > > > It took some time for me to understand what is going on here.
> > > > We have dev argument which sometimes can point to "struct device", sometimes
> > > > to "struct kobj_gt", but it's type suggests differently, quite ugly.
> > > > I wonder if wouldn't be better to use __ATTR instead of DEVICE_ATTR* as in
> > > > case of intel_engines_add_sysfs. This way abstractions would look better,
> > > > hopefully.
> > > How would it help?
> > > 
> > > The difference is that I'm adding twice different interfaces with
> > > the same name and different location (i.e. different object). The
> > > legacy intrefaces inherit the object from drm and I'm preserving
> > > that reference.
> > > 
> > > While the new objects would derive from the previous and they are
> > > pretty much like intel_engines_add_sysfs().
> > 
> > I was not clear on the issue. Here in case of 'id' attribute it is defined
> > as device_attribute, but in kobj_type.sysfs_ops you assign formally
> > incompatible &kobj_sysfs_ops.
> 
> 'kobj_sysfs_ops' is of the type 'kobj_type'.
> 
> > kobj_sysfs_ops expects kobj_attribute! Fortunately kobj_attribute is 'binary
> > compatible' with device_attribute and kobj is at beginning of struct device
> > as well, so it does not blow up, but I wouldn't say it is clean solution :)
> > If you look at intel_engines_add_sysfs you can see that all attributes are
> > defined as kobj_attribute.
> 
> That's exactly the approach I use in the next patches for the
> power management files, I use "struct kobj_gt" wrapped around
> "struct kobject". But I'm using that only for the GT files.
> 
> Are you, btw, suggesting to use this same approache also for the
> legacy files that for now have a pointer to the drm kobject? This
> way I would need to add more information, like the pointer to
> i915 and gt_id. This way I wouldn't need the files above that
> look hacky to you. Is this what you mean?

Still this wouldn't solve it because I am merging the legacy
interfaces to an existing kobject and creating new kobjects for
the new interfaces that go under gt. I would need some other
ugly hack to have things coming around.

Unless I misunderstood you.

Andi

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-13 21:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-17 14:41 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 0/7] Introduce multitile support Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 1/7] drm/i915: Rename INTEL_REGION_LMEM with INTEL_REGION_LMEM_0 Andi Shyti
2022-02-28 19:53   ` Michal Wajdeczko
2022-03-01 15:19   ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/i915: Prepare for multiple GTs Andi Shyti
2022-03-01 15:15   ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-03-06 19:20     ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 3/7] drm/i915/gt: add gt_is_root() helper Andi Shyti
2022-02-28 20:02   ` Michal Wajdeczko
2022-03-01 15:25     ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-03-06 19:23       ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 4/7] drm/i915/gt: create per-tile sysfs interface Andi Shyti
2022-03-02 16:57   ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-03-06 23:04     ` Andi Shyti
2022-03-07 20:25       ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-03-13 19:45         ` Andi Shyti
2022-03-13 21:30           ` Andi Shyti [this message]
2022-03-14 12:08           ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 5/7] drm/i915/gt: Create per-tile RC6 " Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 15:34   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-02-17 15:53     ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-18  9:12       ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-02-18  9:21         ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-18 10:46       ` Joonas Lahtinen
2022-02-21 17:12         ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-02-22  8:57           ` Andi Shyti
2022-11-07  0:08             ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-02-17 20:49   ` kernel test robot
2022-02-17 23:53   ` kernel test robot
2022-03-03 10:19   ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-03-13 22:15     ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 6/7] drm/i915/gt: Create per-tile RPS sysfs interfaces Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 19:47   ` kernel test robot
2022-03-03 10:55   ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-03-13 23:09     ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 14:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 7/7] drm/i915/gt: Adding new sysfs frequency attributes Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 15:45   ` Andi Shyti
2022-02-17 17:06     ` Sundaresan, Sujaritha
2022-02-28 20:37   ` Michal Wajdeczko
2022-03-14  0:38     ` Andi Shyti
2022-03-14  1:32       ` Sundaresan, Sujaritha
2022-03-03 11:17   ` Andrzej Hajda
2022-02-17 23:12 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Introduce multitile support Patchwork
2022-02-17 23:13 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-02-17 23:40 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2022-02-17 23:40 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: warning " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Yi5iWtOzyMLFZWo/@intel.intel \
    --to=andi.shyti@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andrzej.hajda@intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox