Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
接近 2 年 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 06 7月, 2018 1 次提交
  3. 27 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  5. 20 6月, 2017 2 次提交
  7. 09 3月, 2017 1 次提交
  9. 26 1月, 2017 1 次提交
  11. 25 1月, 2017 1 次提交
  13. 30 12月, 2016 1 次提交
  15. 22 9月, 2016 1 次提交
  17. 08 8月, 2016 1 次提交
  19. 22 6月, 2016 1 次提交
  21. 27 4月, 2016 1 次提交
  23. 22 12月, 2015 1 次提交
  25. 30 9月, 2015 1 次提交
    • D
      drm/doc: Update docs about device instance setup · 6e3f797c
      由 Daniel Vetter 提交于 
      ->load is deprecated, bus functions are deprecated and everyone
should use drm_dev_alloc&register.

So update the .tmpl (and pull a bunch of the overview docs into the
sourcecode to increase chances that it'll stay in sync in the future)
and add notes to functions which are deprecated. I didn't bother to
clean up and document the unload sequence similarly since that one is
still a bit a mess: drm_dev_unregister does way too much,
drm_unplug_dev does what _unregister should be doing but then has the
complication of promising something it doesn't actually do (it doesn't
unplug existing open fds for instance, only prevents new ones).

Motivated since I don't want to hunt every new driver for usage of
drm_platform_init any more ;-)

v2: Reword the deprecation note for ->load a bit, using Laurent's
suggestion as an example (but making the wording a bit stronger even).
Fix spelling in commit message.

v3: More spelling fixes from Laurent.

Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Acked-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> (v2)
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      6e3f797c
  27. 14 3月, 2015 1 次提交
    • V
      drm: Silence sparse warnings · 43fc884e
      由 Ville Syrjälä 提交于 
      ../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vm.c:405:6: warning: symbol 'drm_vm_open_locked' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vm.c:431:6: warning: symbol 'drm_vm_close_locked' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vm.c:681:5: warning: symbol 'drm_vma_info' was not declared. Should it be static?

../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:146:5: warning: symbol 'drm_pci_set_unique' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:216:5: warning: symbol 'drm_irq_by_busid' was not declared. Should it be static?

../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c:47:5: warning: symbol 'drm_name_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c:72:5: warning: symbol 'drm_vm_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c:116:5: warning: symbol 'drm_bufs_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c:159:5: warning: symbol 'drm_clients_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c:209:5: warning: symbol 'drm_gem_name_info' was not declared. Should it be static?

../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioc32.c:1019:20: warning: symbol 'drm_compat_ioctls' was not declared. Should it be static?

../drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c:52:12: warning: function 'drm_bridge_attach' with external linkage has definition
Signed-off-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      43fc884e
  29. 12 9月, 2014 2 次提交
  31. 10 9月, 2014 4 次提交
  33. 06 6月, 2014 1 次提交
  35. 23 4月, 2014 5 次提交
  37. 22 4月, 2014 2 次提交
  39. 18 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  41. 17 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  43. 16 3月, 2014 1 次提交
    • D
      drm: provide device-refcount · 099d1c29
      由 David Herrmann 提交于 
      Lets not trick ourselves into thinking "drm_device" objects are not
ref-counted. That's just utterly stupid. We manage "drm_minor" objects on
each drm-device and each minor can have an unlimited number of open
handles. Each of these handles has the drm_minor (and thus the drm_device)
as private-data in the file-handle. Therefore, we may not destroy
"drm_device" until all these handles are closed.

It is *not* possible to reset all these pointers atomically and restrict
access to them, and this is *not* how this is done! Instead, we use
ref-counts to make sure the object is valid and not freed.

Note that we currently use "dev->open_count" for that, which is *exactly*
the same as a reference-count, just open coded. So this patch doesn't
change any semantics on DRM devices (well, this patch just introduces the
ref-count, anyway. Follow-up patches will replace open_count by it).

Also note that generic VFS revoke support could allow us to drop this
ref-count again. We could then just synchronously disable any fops->xy()
calls. However, this is not the case, yet, and no such patches are
in sight (and I seriously question the idea of dropping the ref-cnt
again).
Signed-off-by: NDavid Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
      099d1c29
  45. 18 12月, 2013 8 次提交