From: Ian Romanick <idr@us.ibm.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"DRI developer's list" <dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: DRM code reorganization
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:53:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <410ED3F7.7090809@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040802204553.GC12724@redhat.com>
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>
> > > > This would be *very* non-trivial to do. Doing the DRM like this has
> > > > come up probably a dozen times (or more) over the last 3 years.
> > >Which should ring alarm bells that something might not be quite right.
> > And that it hasn't been done all those times should be a sign of
> > *something*. ;)
>
> heh. I'd attribute it to the fact that it's tedious monotonous work
> doing cleanup work like this, as opposed to 'sexy' work, like hacking
> on something new. Personally, I've always found something more important
> to be doing. Maybe I can find some more time to look into it soon.
If you're like me and most of the other developers, you've already got a
to-do list a mile long. For me hitting myself on the head with a hammer
is pretty low. ;)
> > 1. There is a lot more variability among graphics cards that there is
> > among, say, network cards. Look at the output of 'grep __HAVE_ | grep
> > define' on any two <card>.h files to see what I mean. The output for
> > tdfx.h and radeon.h, or mga.h and savage.h is *very* different. That,
> > by itself, makes a huge difference on what code is needed.
>
> The __HAVE_ stuff is another pet gripe of mine.
> In particular, the mish-mash of __HAVE_AGP , __REALLY_HAVE_AGP, __MUST_HAVE_AGP
> flags have bugged me for a long time.
The problem is that __REALLY_HAVE_FOO is usually just (__HAVE_FOO &&
CONFIG_FOO) on Linux. They appear to be derived slightly differently on
NetBSD and FreeBSD. 'grep __REALLY_HAVE drm_os_*bsd.h | grep define' in
the bsd directory in the DRM tree. Since there's just the three
(__REALLY_HAVE_AGP, __REALLY_HAVE_SG, and __REALLY_HAVE_MTRR), I think
we can live with them.
It shouldn't be too hard to get rid of __MUST_HAVE_AGP, though.
I think this is the right place to start. A couple of these look easier
to get rid of than others. __HAVE_MTRR and __HAVE_AGP are enabled in
every driver except ffb. It should be easy enough to get rid of them.
It looks like __HAVE_RELEASE, __HAVE_DMA_READY, __HAVE_DMA_FLUSH,
__HAVE_DMA_QUIESCENT, and __HAVE_MULTIPLE_DMA_QUEUES (which looks broken
anyway) should also be low-hanging fruit.
If we get that far, I think the next step would be to replace the
DRIVER_* macros with a table of function pointers that would get passed
around. Since I doubt any of those uses are performance critical, that
should be fine.
Then we can start looking at data structure refactoring.
> > >If this kind of abuse wasn't so widespread, abstracting this code
> > >out into shared sections and driver specific parts would be a lot
> > >simpler. Sadly, this is the tip of the iceberg.
> >
> > I think it comes down to the fact that the original DRM developers
> > wanted templates. C doesn't have them, so they did the "next best" thing.
>
> I vaguelly recall the code at one point not looking quite 'so bad',
> it just grew and grew into this monster. I'm sure it was done originally
> with the best of intentions, but it seems someone along the line got
> a bit carried away.
There was a point when a *lot* of the device-dependent code was still in
the OS-dependent directories. This is how the i810 and i830 drivers
still are. I think as more of the code got moved into the
OS-independent directory, it got less pleasant to read.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-02 23:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-02 15:53 DRM code reorganization Jon Smirl
2004-08-02 18:02 ` Ian Romanick
2004-08-02 18:27 ` Keith Whitwell
2004-08-02 18:57 ` Dave Jones
2004-08-02 18:16 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-02 20:11 ` Ian Romanick
2004-08-02 20:42 ` Jon Smirl
2004-08-02 21:09 ` Dave Jones
2004-08-02 21:51 ` Michel Dänzer
2004-08-02 23:09 ` Jon Smirl
2004-08-02 23:24 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-02 20:45 ` Dave Jones
2004-08-02 23:53 ` Ian Romanick [this message]
2004-08-03 7:52 ` Keith Whitwell
2004-08-03 16:28 ` Ian Romanick
2004-08-03 16:49 ` Keith Whitwell
2004-08-03 0:06 ` Dave Airlie
2004-08-03 6:13 ` Eric Anholt
2004-08-02 23:48 ` Dave Airlie
2004-08-02 23:26 ` Alan Cox
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=410ED3F7.7090809@us.ibm.com \
--to=idr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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