[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 04/27] drm: Don't test for IRQ support in VBLANK ioctls

[Thierry Reding]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:07:57AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 24.06.21 um 10:51 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > Am 24.06.21 um 10:06 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > index 3417e1ac7918..10fe16bafcb6 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > @@ -1748,8 +1748,16 @@ int drm_wait_vblank_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > > > >    	unsigned int pipe_index;
> > > > >    	unsigned int flags, pipe, high_pipe;
> > > > > -	if (!dev->irq_enabled)
> > > > > -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY)
> > > > > +	if  (unlikely(drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY))) {
> > > > > +		if (!dev->irq_enabled)
> > > > > +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > +	} else /* if DRIVER_MODESET */
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +	{
> > > > > +		if (!drm_dev_has_vblank(dev))
> > > > > +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > 
> > > > Sheesh I hate this kind of inline #ifdefs.
> > > > 
> > > > Two alternate suggestions that I believe should be as just efficient:
> > > 
> > > Or how about:
> > > 
> > > static bool drm_wait_vblank_supported(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > 
> > > {
> > > 
> > > if defined(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY)
> > > 	if  (unlikely(drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)))
> > > 
> > > 		return dev->irq_enabled;
> > > 
> > > #endif
> > > 	return drm_dev_has_vblank(dev);
> > > 
> > > }
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > It's inline, but still readable.
> > 
> > It's definitely better than the original, but it's unclear to me why
> > you'd prefer this over option 2) below. I guess the only reason I can
> > think of is emphasizing the conditional compilation. However,
> > IS_ENABLED() is widely used in this manner specifically to avoid inline
> > #if, and the compiler optimizes it away.
> 
> It's simply more readable to me as the condition is simpler. But option 2 is
> also ok.

Perhaps do something like this, then:

	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY)) {
		if (unlikely(drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)))
			return dev->irq_enabled;
	}

	return drm_dev_has_vblank(dev);

That's about just as readable as the variant involving the preprocessor
but has all the benefits of not using the preprocessor.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20210624/07d50b4b/attachment.sig>