On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
>>> corresponding registers do not exist.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
>>> + goto skip_clk_init;
>>
>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
>> similar.
>>
>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
>> newer generations.
> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
> GM107.
>
> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
> probe patch) here too.
I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
instead of gk20a.c?
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
>>>> corresponding registers do not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
>>>> + goto skip_clk_init;
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
>>> similar.
>>>
>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
>>> newer generations.
>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
>> GM107.
>>
>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
>> probe patch) here too.
>
> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
> instead of gk20a.c?
For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're
working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names
for things ;)
On 04/11/2014 04:31 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
>>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
>>>>> corresponding registers do not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
>>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
>>>>> + goto skip_clk_init;
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
>>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
>>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
>>>> similar.
>>>>
>>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
>>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
>>>> newer generations.
>>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
>>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
>>> GM107.
>>>
>>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
>>> probe patch) here too.
>>
>> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
>> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
>> instead of gk20a.c?
> For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're
> working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names
> for things ;)
So would you like us to use the same naming scheme as well? So far all
my patches use "nvea.c" whenever I need to add code.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 04:31 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
>>>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
>>>>>> corresponding registers do not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19
>>>>>> +++++++++++++------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
>>>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
>>>>>> + goto skip_clk_init;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
>>>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
>>>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
>>>>> similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
>>>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
>>>>> newer generations.
>>>>
>>>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
>>>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
>>>> GM107.
>>>>
>>>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
>>>> probe patch) here too.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
>>> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
>>> instead of gk20a.c?
>>
>> For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're
>> working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names
>> for things ;)
>
>
> So would you like us to use the same naming scheme as well? So far all my
> patches use "nvea.c" whenever I need to add code.
If it's not too much of a problem at this point, then that'd be good.
Right before I send -next for the next merge window I'll likely do a
mass rename anyway, so if we can get your patches merged before then
(which would be really good!), it doesn't matter much.
Ben.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ben Skeggs <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 04:31 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be
>>>>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the
>>>>>>> corresponding registers do not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c
>>>>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */
>>>>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea)
>>>>>>> + goto skip_clk_init;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better
>>>>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct
>>>>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or
>>>>>> similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra
>>>>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in
>>>>>> newer generations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd
>>>>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for
>>>>> GM107.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the
>>>>> probe patch) here too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw,
>>>> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c
>>>> instead of gk20a.c?
>>>
>>> For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're
>>> working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names
>>> for things ;)
>>
>>
>> So would you like us to use the same naming scheme as well? So far all my
>> patches use "nvea.c" whenever I need to add code.
> If it's not too much of a problem at this point, then that'd be good.
> Right before I send -next for the next merge window I'll likely do a
> mass rename anyway, so if we can get your patches merged before then
> (which would be really good!), it doesn't matter much.
No problem, I will update the naming to follow what you did with the
timer driver and gm107.
Hopefully I will soon manage to carve out some time to rebase these
patches and send v2.