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

[Thomas Zimmermann]

Hi

Am 24.06.21 um 14:36 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Looks like a winner to me. :)

That's the most readable.

But I just remembered that irq_enabled will likely become legacy-only in 
the device structure. We'll need an ifdef variant then. :/

Best regards
Thomas

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 

-- 
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: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20210624/4f00087e/attachment.sig>