[PATCH v5 02/21] gpu: host1x: Allow syncpoints without associated client

[Mikko Perttunen]

On 3/23/21 12:10 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:00:00PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>> Syncpoints don't need to be associated with any client,
>> so remove the property, and expose host1x_syncpt_alloc.
>> This will allow allocating syncpoints without prior knowledge
>> of the engine that it will be used with.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen at nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> * Clean up host1x_syncpt_alloc signature to allow specifying
>>    a name for the syncpoint.
>> * Export the function.
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
>>   drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.h |  1 -
>>   include/linux/host1x.h      |  3 +++
>>   3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c
>> index fce7892d5137..5982fdf64e1c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c
>> @@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ static void host1x_syncpt_base_free(struct host1x_syncpt_base *base)
>>   		base->requested = false;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
>> -						 struct host1x_client *client,
>> -						 unsigned long flags)
>> +struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
>> +					  unsigned long flags,
>> +					  const char *name)
> 
> If we expose it publicly, it's a good idea to add kerneldoc.

Will fix.

> 
>>   {
>>   	struct host1x_syncpt *sp = host->syncpt;
>> +	char *full_name;
>>   	unsigned int i;
>> -	char *name;
>>   
>>   	mutex_lock(&host->syncpt_mutex);
>>   
>> @@ -64,13 +64,11 @@ static struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
>>   			goto unlock;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%02u-%s", sp->id,
>> -			 client ? dev_name(client->dev) : NULL);
>> -	if (!name)
>> +	full_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%u-%s", sp->id, name);
>> +	if (!full_name)
> 
> I know this just keeps with the status quo, but I wonder if we should
> change this to be just "%u" if name == NULL to avoid a weird-looking
> name. Or perhaps we want to enforce name != NULL by failing if that's
> not the case?

I'll see about making the name mandatory.

> 
> Thierry
> 

Mikko