[PATCH v10 01/11] drm/etnaviv: Add a dedicated function to register an irq handler

[Sui Jingfeng]

Hi,

On 2023/6/21 18:16, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 21.06.2023 um 17:20 +0800 schrieb Sui Jingfeng:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2023/6/21 17:07, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, dem 20.06.2023 um 17:47 +0800 schrieb Sui Jingfeng:
>>>> From: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng at loongson.cn>
>>>>
>>>> Because getting IRQ from a device is platform-dependent, PCI devices have
>>>> different methods for getting an IRQ. This patch is a preparation to extend
>>>> this driver for supporting the PCI devices.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach at pengutronix.de>
>>>> Cc: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel at pengutronix.de>
>>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com>
>>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng at loongson.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>    1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c
>>>> index de8c9894967c..a03e81337d8f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.c
>>>> @@ -1817,6 +1817,27 @@ static const struct of_device_id etnaviv_gpu_match[] = {
>>>>    };
>>>>    MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, etnaviv_gpu_match);
>>>>    
>>>> +static int etnaviv_gpu_register_irq(struct etnaviv_gpu *gpu, int irq)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct device *dev = gpu->dev;
>>>> +	int err;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (irq < 0)
>>>> +		return irq;
>>>> +
>>>> +	err = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, irq_handler, 0, dev_name(dev), gpu);
>>>> +	if (err) {
>>>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to request irq %u: %d\n", irq, err);
>>>> +		return err;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	gpu->irq = irq;
>>>> +
>>>> +	dev_info(dev, "irq(%d) handler registered\n", irq);
>>> There is no reason to put this into the kernel log.
>> I want to see the IRQ of the device when debugging,
>>
>> etnaviv actually print very less.
>>
>> This serve as a minimal signal  to us the etnaviv_gpu_register_irq()
>> function is successful at driver load time.
>>
> And debugging is a very different use-case than normal operation. If
> it's needed at all, downgrade this to dev_dbg. This isn't interesting
> information for a ordinary user of a system.
>
>>>    It's no different
>>> than other resources to the driver and we don't log each one of those
>>> either.
>>>
>>> In fact I don't see any reason for this change in the first place.
>>> Effectively you are moving a single function call into a new function,
>>> which doesn't seem like an improvement.
>> This is to make the patch easy to review, each patch is only introduce a
>> small function,
>>
> What I'm saying is that I don't see the need to introduce this function
> at all. All you need to do is move platform_get_irq out into the
> platform device code path. The devm_request_irq can stay where it is,
> as the only difference between platform and PCI device is how the irq
> number is retrieved from the platform.

Yes, you are right. I understand what are asking, but my point is:


This patch is paving the way for us to introduce the PCI device driver.

All of the patches before the patch 
v10-0006-drm-etnaviv-Add-driver-support-for-the-PCI-devic.patch

are actually doing the preparation.


Look at the patch 0006, I achieve the goal by 128 insertions and 7 
deletions.

while the only 7 deletions are actually for code shading(convert the 
static function to global function).

There is No large area diff and NO distortion.

The goal is adding a PCI device driver on the top of what we already have.


Before the cleanup, the etnaviv_gpu_platform_probe() function is just 
like is a *glue*.

Originally,  it integrate a lot of irrelevant part together.


1.  Mapping MMIO registers make it platform-dependent;

2.  Calling platform_get_irq(pdev, 0) make it platform-dependent;

3.  Getting Clocks by calling devm_clk_get() make it platform-dependent;

4.  Calling component_add() make it subsytem and framework-dependent;


All of above list item is deny us to introduce the PCI device driver 
wrapper.

It(sub-functional code) is not relevant to each other.

Hence the first five patch is actually do the clean,

for the clarify(and tidy and good looking) of the patch 6.


I will drop the printing, but keep the cleanup function there,

Is this acceptable?


> Regards,
> Lucas
>
>> which is paving the way for we introducing the PCI device driver.
>>
>> Otherwise when we introducing the PCI device driver, the patch is looks
>> ugly,
>>
>> It is difficult to review.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Lucas
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static int etnaviv_gpu_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>> @@ -1837,16 +1858,9 @@ static int etnaviv_gpu_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    		return PTR_ERR(gpu->mmio);
>>>>    
>>>>    	/* Get Interrupt: */
>>>> -	gpu->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> -	if (gpu->irq < 0)
>>>> -		return gpu->irq;
>>>> -
>>>> -	err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, gpu->irq, irq_handler, 0,
>>>> -			       dev_name(gpu->dev), gpu);
>>>> -	if (err) {
>>>> -		dev_err(dev, "failed to request IRQ%u: %d\n", gpu->irq, err);
>>>> +	err = etnaviv_gpu_register_irq(gpu, platform_get_irq(pdev, 0));
>>>> +	if (err)
>>>>    		return err;
>>>> -	}
>>>>    
>>>>    	/* Get Clocks: */
>>>>    	gpu->clk_reg = devm_clk_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "reg");

-- 
Jingfeng