[RFC v2 8/8] drm/panthor: Expose the panthor perf ioctls

[Adrián Larumbe]

I don't know what the usual practice is when adding a new DRM driver ioctl(), but wouldn't it make
more sense to add the PERF_CONTROL one to the panthor_drm_driver_ioctls array in this patch instead?

Other than that:

Reviewed-by: Adrián Larumbe <adrian.larumbe at collabora.com>

On 11.12.2024 16:50, Lukas Zapolskas wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Zapolskas <lukas.zapolskas at arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c
> index 2848ab442d10..ef081a383fa9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c
> @@ -1654,6 +1654,8 @@ static void panthor_debugfs_init(struct drm_minor *minor)
>   * - 1.1 - adds DEV_QUERY_TIMESTAMP_INFO query
>   * - 1.2 - adds DEV_QUERY_GROUP_PRIORITIES_INFO query
>   *       - adds PANTHOR_GROUP_PRIORITY_REALTIME priority
> + * - 1.3 - adds DEV_QUERY_PERF_INFO query
> + *         adds PERF_CONTROL ioctl
>   */
>  static const struct drm_driver panthor_drm_driver = {
>  	.driver_features = DRIVER_RENDER | DRIVER_GEM | DRIVER_SYNCOBJ |
> @@ -1667,7 +1669,7 @@ static const struct drm_driver panthor_drm_driver = {
>  	.name = "panthor",
>  	.desc = "Panthor DRM driver",
>  	.major = 1,
> -	.minor = 2,
> +	.minor = 3,
>  
>  	.gem_create_object = panthor_gem_create_object,
>  	.gem_prime_import_sg_table = drm_gem_shmem_prime_import_sg_table,
> -- 
> 2.25.1


Adrian Larumbe