From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753193Ab2LAROA (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:14:00 -0500 Received: from hqemgate03.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.140]:1794 "EHLO hqemgate03.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624Ab2LARN6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:13:58 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp06.nvidia.com on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:13:33 -0800 Message-ID: <50BA3ACD.9080104@nvidia.com> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:13:49 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VGVyamUgQmVyZ3N0csO2bQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Reding CC: "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/8] video: tegra: Add nvhost driver References: <1353935954-13763-1-git-send-email-tbergstrom@nvidia.com> <1353935954-13763-2-git-send-email-tbergstrom@nvidia.com> <20121128212301.GA25531@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50B73710.2040102@nvidia.com> <20121129114704.GB6150@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50B874C7.5030208@nvidia.com> <20121130103850.GA28367@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50B9EA76.10803@nvidia.com> <20121201145814.GB18209@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> In-Reply-To: <20121201145814.GB18209@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01.12.2012 16:58, Thierry Reding wrote: > I don't know where you see politics in what I said. All I'm saying is > that we shouldn't be making things needlessly complex. In my experience > the technically cleanest solution is usually the one with the least > complexity. Let me come up with a proposal and let's then see where to go next. > But you already have extra code in the kernel to patch out expired sync- > points. Is it really worth the added effort to burden userspace with > this? If so I still think some kind of generic IOCTL to retrieve > information about a syncpoint would be better than a sysfs interface. That's exactly why I mentioned that it's not useful to upstream. There are some cases where user space might want to check if a fence has passed without waiting for it, but that's marginal and could be handled even with waits with zero timeout. Terje