From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/27] gpu: host1x: Add support for Tegra114 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:24:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20131012112443.GC22284@mithrandir> References: <1381134884-5816-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <1381134884-5816-16-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <525877F3.9070004@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <525877F3.9070004-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Warren , Terje Bergstrom Cc: dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:13:07PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/07/2013 02:34 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > Tegra114 uses a slightly updated version of host1x with an additional > > syncpoint. >=20 > > drivers/gpu/host1x/hw/host1x02.c | 42 +++++ > > drivers/gpu/host1x/hw/host1x02.h | 26 +++ > > drivers/gpu/host1x/hw/hw_host1x02_channel.h | 121 ++++++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/host1x/hw/hw_host1x02_sync.h | 243 ++++++++++++++++++++= ++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/host1x/hw/hw_host1x02_uclass.h | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++ >=20 > That seems like an awful lot of extra lines to support just one extra > syncpoint. Are there other changes? If not, can the code be > shared/parameterized somehow? Yeah, I don't like very much how this is currently done. I mean about half of this is actually duplicate code because of the static inline functions used for register defines. As discussed elsewhere this was originally meant to be used for coverage testing, but nobody's done anything like that as far as I know. I'm also not convinced that these would be very useful in coverage testing, but adding Terje on Cc and unless he or anyone else has any (strong) objections I'll go and remove the duplicate definitions and while at it see if I can come up with a way to share more code/definitions between versions of host1x. Do you see this as a blocker for 3.13 or can I do the cleanup after that? As far as I know Tegra124 has a more heavily modified version of host1x so implementing Tegra124 support might be a good opportunity to clean this up anyway. Thierry --4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSWTF7AAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhHNEP/3xWDkfE8LczaDGTktIYsSaM w6dGmCdf9eC6u/ioWWuQ7nBDfDgDmOfyFqVUSVSyFGDO3aUgN9GOKnaiq0/0WlV6 UBIhzvQLaXTinqhUhoekVZmM+bBttVDCrkaDn4IPhMuIgW0sionNaHi8JgZMFcNl qVG/PRxuFG8AxE1dtMWJmgKx/P27Qmnugkm6Bfvey0YFMHJkGeTMju7cquYxqU7W 5FjPKMNax+yog+MJEcXz+zwRoKw3dWVRzfQxA0uplUMD2RNOPr97JBtb3i5hjpRk IFbSiLAe2X1MYg0veV996ck8UE0isGa++BEfr4qeD9bGI5/dZmKFLf49S8qqIUZs M4l6co8dY/THM0JaIDf0YhQ5l30gWb0HlCZ8POF2kCEsBQ/4WfI/QmXbE2sh8x+l 38ZnSRI+6ePtJGeIxTS3/T3bsDuRQFRvbtgQHvSVWYW9uaTctNWDi1mBiwBAGIqG /YyMvkdNVokrgfu2Uy2TAp4pmwm9HluMJ4sX8dSz+J3D4cIz6L5CutEGYSBtOJ5N Lb2c1173BdlPgeJ6XatzcLv1POVPg3eBbyD0ejQ1InD5tBmPYqdS4u0Q2O9pUIvD Vicga31GLoPQ7RZ42iG59NyU64AhaFBvSVrl/byvIlVsECIDkXmiO8PQtA1Pe9xD 1xzWlpIWNoTuvRroZ4Jf =5LQT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L--