On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:00:00PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
Syncpoints don't need to be associated with any client, so remove the property, and expose host1x_syncpt_alloc. This will allow allocating syncpoints without prior knowledge of the engine that it will be used with.
Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen mperttunen@nvidia.com
v3:
- Clean up host1x_syncpt_alloc signature to allow specifying a name for the syncpoint.
- Export the function.
drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c | 22 ++++++++++------------ drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.h | 1 - include/linux/host1x.h | 3 +++ 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c index fce7892d5137..5982fdf64e1c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c @@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ static void host1x_syncpt_base_free(struct host1x_syncpt_base *base) base->requested = false; }
-static struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
struct host1x_client *client,unsigned long flags)+struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
unsigned long flags,const char *name)
If we expose it publicly, it's a good idea to add kerneldoc.
{ struct host1x_syncpt *sp = host->syncpt;
- char *full_name; unsigned int i;
char *name;
mutex_lock(&host->syncpt_mutex);
@@ -64,13 +64,11 @@ static struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host, goto unlock; }
- name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%02u-%s", sp->id,
client ? dev_name(client->dev) : NULL);- if (!name)
- full_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%u-%s", sp->id, name);
- if (!full_name)
I know this just keeps with the status quo, but I wonder if we should change this to be just "%u" if name == NULL to avoid a weird-looking name. Or perhaps we want to enforce name != NULL by failing if that's not the case?
Thierry