[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Rework DRM proc file handling

[Eric Anholt]

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 09:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 14:00 -0500, Ben Gamari wrote:
> >> Hey everyone,
> >>
> >> This is the latest version of my procfs file handling patch. I have
> >> ported the old proc files to use the seq_file interface greatly
> >> simplifying the code. I have also put in place infrastructure for
> >> exporting data through debugfs, creating a dri/ directory in the debugfs
> >> root similar to procfs. I moved /proc/dri/*/vma along with all of the
> >> i915_gem_* files into this directory. Like the proc code, the debugfs
> >> code uses seq_file. This code has all been tested and appears to work.
> >>
> >> Lastly, I ported the old ring buffer dump code to the drm. This creates
> >> a file in debugfs (i915_gem_ringbuf) from which the ring buffer can be
> >> dumped. Currently, the code is only capable of dumping the ring buffer
> >> itself. It'll probably be a few weeks before I have time to think about
> >> getting batchbuffer dumping working. This is the outline I currently
> >> have,
> >> - Search through the active batchbuffer list looking for a batchbuffer
> >> located at the offset indicated in the MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START instruction
> >> - Pin this batchbuffer into memory somewhere
> >> - Dump its contents
> >> - Unpin
> >>
> >> I know practically nothing about gem at the moment, so it'll take me a
> >> while to get up to speed. If someone else wants to try adding
> >> batchbuffer dumping, they are more than welcome.
> >>
> >> At this point, I think the patch is nearing a merge-worthy point. Let me
> >> know what else is needed to get it merged.
> >
> > Could this get split up into a step that converts the existing code to
> > using seq_printf (which seems great!), a second step moving appropriate
> > parts to debugfs (I'm not really sold on this), and another step adding
> > the intel ring dumping (I'm very interested in this)?  Then we can look
> > at the individual parts of the project more easily than reviewing a
> > 1700-line patch :)
> 
> I'm all for that as well, the problem with using /proc for this stuff
> is upstream
> doesn't want us to use proc for this stuff. In the end we need distros
> to start mounting
> debugfs maybe I can start kicking some heads in that direction.

Yeah, that's my only objection to debugfs -- if I can't ask someone
for /whatever/path/i/dont/care/i915_gem_interrupt and have it work, I'm
sad.

-- 
Eric Anholt
eric at anholt.net                         eric.anholt at intel.com


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20081219/738ee5b4/attachment.sig>