[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/59] drm: Add devm_drm_dev_alloc macro

Thomas Zimmermann tzimmermann at suse.de
Tue Apr 21 14:03:13 UTC 2020


Hi

Am 21.04.20 um 12:45 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:37 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 15.04.20 um 09:39 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> Add a new macro helper to combine the usual init sequence in drivers,
>>> consisting of a kzalloc + devm_drm_dev_init + drmm_add_final_kfree
>>> triplet. This allows us to remove the rather unsightly
>>> drmm_add_final_kfree from all currently merged drivers.
>>>
>>> The kerneldoc is only added for this new function. Existing kerneldoc
>>> and examples will be udated at the very end, since once all drivers
>>> are converted over to devm_drm_dev_alloc we can unexport a lot of
>>> interim functions and make the documentation for driver authors a lot
>>> cleaner and less confusing. There will be only one true way to
>>> initialize a drm_device at the end of this, which is going to be
>>> devm_drm_dev_alloc.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - Actually explain what this is for in the commit message (Sam)
>>> - Fix checkpatch issues (Sam)
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf at tronnes.org>
>>> Cc: Noralf Trønnes <noralf at tronnes.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org>
>>> Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com>
>>> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> 
> Thanks for taking a look, some questions on your suggestions below.
> 
>> Sorry for being late. A number of nits are listed below. In any case:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Thomas
>>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  include/drm/drm_drv.h     | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>> index 1bb4f636b83c..8e1813d2a12e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>> @@ -739,6 +739,29 @@ int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent,
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_drm_dev_init);
>>>
>>> +void *__devm_drm_dev_alloc(struct device *parent, struct drm_driver *driver,
>>> +                        size_t size, size_t offset)
>>
>> Maybe rename 'offset' of 'dev_offset' to make the relationship clear.
> 
> Hm, I see the point of this (and the dev_field below, although I'd go
> with dev_member there for some consistency with other macros using
> offset_of or container_of), but I'm not sure about the dev_ prefix.
> Drivers use that sometimes for the struct device *, and usage for
> struct drm_device * is also very inconsistent. I've seen ddev, drm,
> dev and base (that one only for embedded structs ofc). So not sure
> which prefix to pick, aside from dev_ seems the most confusing. Got
> ideas?

We have pdev for the PCI device, dev for the abstract device, and things
like mdev for struct mga_device in mgag200. So I'd go with ddev. I don't
like drm, because it could be anything in DRM. I guess struct drm_driver
is more 'drm' than struct drm_device.

But all of this is bikeshedding. It's probably best to keep the patch
as-is, and maybe rename variables later if we ever find consent on the
naming.

> 
>>> +{
>>> +     void *container;
>>> +     struct drm_device *drm;
>>> +     int ret;
>>> +
>>> +     container = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +     if (!container)
>>> +             return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> +
>>> +     drm = container + offset;
>>
>> While convenient, I somewhat dislike the use of void* variables. I'd use
>> unsigned char* for container and do an explicit cast to struct
>> drm_device* here.
> 
> I thought ever since C89 the explicit recommendation for untyped
> pointer math has been void *, and no longer char *, with the spec
> being explicit that void * pointer math works exactly like char *. So

From how I understand the C spec, I think it's the other way around. I
had to look up the sections from the C11 spec:

Sec 6.5.6 Additive operators

 2 For addition, either both operands shall have arithmetic type, or
   one operand shall be a pointer to a complete object type and the
   other shall have integer type. (Incrementing is equivalent to adding
   1.)

About void it says that it's not a complete type.

Sec 6.2.5 Types

 19 The void type comprises an empty set of values; it is an incomplete
    object type that cannot be completed.

Arithmetic on void* is a gcc extension AFAIK.

> not clear on why you think char * is preferred here. I'm also not
> aware of any other kernel code that casts to char * for untyped
> pointer math. So unless you have some supporting evidence, I'll skip
> this one, ok?

I'm really just bikeshedding on things I'd have done differently.

Best regards
Thomas

> 
> Thanks, Daniel
> 
>>> +     ret = devm_drm_dev_init(parent, drm, driver);
>>> +     if (ret) {
>>> +             kfree(container);
>>> +             return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>> +     }
>>> +     drmm_add_final_kfree(drm, container);
>>> +
>>> +     return container;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__devm_drm_dev_alloc);
>>> +
>>>  /**
>>>   * drm_dev_alloc - Allocate new DRM device
>>>   * @driver: DRM driver to allocate device for
>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_drv.h b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
>>> index e7c6ea261ed1..f07f15721254 100644
>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_drv.h
>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
>>> @@ -626,6 +626,39 @@ int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent,
>>>                     struct drm_device *dev,
>>>                     struct drm_driver *driver);
>>>
>>> +void *__devm_drm_dev_alloc(struct device *parent, struct drm_driver *driver,
>>> +                        size_t size, size_t offset);
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * devm_drm_dev_alloc - Resource managed allocation of a &drm_device instance
>>> + * @parent: Parent device object
>>> + * @driver: DRM driver
>>> + * @type: the type of the struct which contains struct &drm_device
>>> + * @member: the name of the &drm_device within @type.
>>> + *
>>> + * This allocates and initialize a new DRM device. No device registration is done.
>>> + * Call drm_dev_register() to advertice the device to user space and register it
>>> + * with other core subsystems. This should be done last in the device
>>> + * initialization sequence to make sure userspace can't access an inconsistent
>>> + * state.
>>> + *
>>> + * The initial ref-count of the object is 1. Use drm_dev_get() and
>>> + * drm_dev_put() to take and drop further ref-counts.
>>> + *
>>> + * It is recommended that drivers embed &struct drm_device into their own device
>>> + * structure.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note that this manages the lifetime of the resulting &drm_device
>>> + * automatically using devres. The DRM device initialized with this function is
>>> + * automatically put on driver detach using drm_dev_put().
>>> + *
>>> + * RETURNS:
>>> + * Pointer to new DRM device, or ERR_PTR on failure.
>>> + */
>>> +#define devm_drm_dev_alloc(parent, driver, type, member) \
>>
>> I'd replace 'member' with 'dev_field' to make the relation ship clear.
>>
>>> +     ((type *) __devm_drm_dev_alloc(parent, driver, sizeof(type), \
>>> +                                    offsetof(type, member)))
>>> +
>>>  struct drm_device *drm_dev_alloc(struct drm_driver *driver,
>>>                                struct device *parent);
>>>  int drm_dev_register(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long flags);
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Zimmermann
>> Graphics Driver Developer
>> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
>> Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>> (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
>> Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20200421/5c0b618a/attachment.sig>


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list