Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 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
  3. 12 9月, 2014 2 次提交
  5. 10 9月, 2014 4 次提交
  7. 06 6月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 23 4月, 2014 5 次提交
  11. 22 4月, 2014 2 次提交
  13. 18 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  15. 17 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  17. 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
  19. 18 12月, 2013 8 次提交
  21. 06 11月, 2013 1 次提交
  23. 09 10月, 2013 4 次提交
  25. 30 8月, 2013 1 次提交
    • D
      drm: implement experimental render nodes · 1793126f
      由 David Herrmann 提交于 
      Render nodes provide an API for userspace to use non-privileged GPU
commands without any running DRM-Master. It is useful for offscreen
rendering, GPGPU clients, and normal render clients which do not perform
modesetting.

Compared to legacy clients, render clients no longer need any
authentication to perform client ioctls. Instead, user-space controls
render/client access to GPUs via filesystem access-modes on the
render-node. Once a render-node was opened, a client has full access to
the client/render operations on the GPU. However, no modesetting or ioctls
that affect global state are allowed on render nodes.

To prevent privilege-escalation, drivers must explicitly state that they
support render nodes. They must mark their render-only ioctls as
DRM_RENDER_ALLOW so render clients can use them. Furthermore, they must
support clients without any attached master.

If filesystem access-modes are not enough for fine-grained access control
to render nodes (very unlikely, considering the versaitlity of FS-ACLs),
you may still fall-back to fd-passing from server to client (which allows
arbitrary access-control). However, note that revoking access is
currently impossible and unlikely to get implemented.

Note: Render clients no longer have any associated DRM-Master as they are
supposed to be independent of any server state. DRM core highly depends on
file_priv->master to be non-NULL for modesetting/ctx/etc. commands.
Therefore, drivers must be very careful to not require DRM-Master if they
support DRIVER_RENDER.

So far render-nodes are protected by "drm_rnodes". As long as this
module-parameter is not set to 1, a driver will not create render nodes.
This allows us to experiment with the API a bit before we stabilize it.

v2: drop insecure GEM_FLINK to force use of dmabuf
Signed-off-by: NDavid Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NDave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
      1793126f
  27. 19 8月, 2013 1 次提交
    • D
      drm: rip out drm_core_has_MTRR checks · 28185647
      由 Daniel Vetter 提交于 
      The new arch_phys_wc_add/del functions do the right thing both with
and without MTRR support in the kernel. So we can drop these
additional checks.

David Herrmann suggest to also kill the DRIVER_USE_MTRR flag since
it's now unused, which spurred me to do a bit a better audit of the
affected drivers. David helped a lot in that. Quoting our mail
discussion:

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> -#if __OS_HAS_MTRR
>>>> -static inline int drm_core_has_MTRR(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>> -{
>>>> -       return drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_USE_MTRR);
>>>> -}
>>>> -#else
>>>> -#define drm_core_has_MTRR(dev) (0)
>>>> -#endif
>>>> -
>>>
>>> That was the last user of DRIVER_USE_MTRR (apart from drivers setting
>>> it in .driver_features). Any reason to keep it around?
>>
>> Yeah, I guess we could rip things out. Which will also force me to
>> properly audit drivers for the eventual behaviour change this could
>> entail (in case there's an x86 driver which did not ask for an mtrr,
>> but iirc there isn't).
>
> david@david-mb ~/dev/kernel/linux $ for i in drivers/gpu/drm/* ; do if
> test -d "$i" ; then if ! grep -q USE_MTRR -r $i ; then echo $i ; fi ;
> fi ; done
> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500
> drivers/gpu/drm/i2c
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm
> drivers/gpu/drm/qxl
> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du
> drivers/gpu/drm/shmobile
> drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm
> drivers/gpu/drm/udl
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx
> david@david-mb ~/dev/kernel/linux $
>
> So for x86 gma500,nouveau,qxl,udl,vmwgfx don't set DRIVER_USE_MTRR.
> But I cannot tell whether they break if we call arch_phys_wc_add/del,
> anyway. At least nouveau seemed to work here, but it doesn't use AGP
> or drm_bufs, I guess.

Cool, thanks a lot for stitching together the list of drivers to look
at. So for real KMS drivers it's the drives responsibility to add an
mtrr if it needs one. nouvea, radeon, mgag200, i915 and vmwgfx do that
already. Somehow the savage driver also ends up doing that, I have no
idea why.

Note that gma500 as a pure KMS driver doesn't need MTRR setup since
the platforms that it supports all support PAT. So no MTRRs needed to
get wc iomappings.

The mtrr support in the drm core is all for legacy mappings of garts,
framebuffers and registers. All legacy drivers set the USE_MTRR flag,
so we're good there.

All in all I think we can really just ditch this

/endquote

v2: Also kill DRIVER_USE_MTRR as suggested by David Herrmann

v3: Rebase on top of David Herrmann's agp setup/cleanup changes.

Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Acked-by: NAndy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Reviewed-by: NDavid Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NDave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
      28185647
  29. 07 8月, 2013 1 次提交
  31. 23 7月, 2013 1 次提交
  33. 31 5月, 2013 1 次提交
    • A
      drm, agpgart: Use pgprot_writecombine for AGP maps and make the MTRR optional · f435046d
      由 Andy Lutomirski 提交于 
      I'm not sure I understand the intent of the previous behavior.  mmap
on /dev/agpgart and DRM_AGP maps had no cache flags set, so they
would be fully cacheable.  But the DRM code (most of the time) would
add a write-combining MTRR that would change the effective memory
type to WC.

The new behavior just requests WC explicitly for all AGP maps.

If there is any code out there that expects cacheable access to the
AGP aperture (because the drm driver doesn't request an MTRR or
because it's using /dev/agpgart directly), then it will now end up
with a UC or WC mapping, depending on the architecture and PAT
availability.  But cacheable access to the aperture seems like it's
asking for trouble, because, AIUI, the aperture is an alias of RAM.
Reviewed-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Signed-off-by: NAndy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Signed-off-by: NDave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
      f435046d
  35. 30 4月, 2013 1 次提交
    • V
      drm: Silence some sparse warnings · ea9cbb06
      由 Ville Syrjälä 提交于 
      drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:155:5: warning: symbol 'drm_pci_set_busid' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:197:5: warning: symbol 'drm_pci_set_unique' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:269:5: warning: symbol 'drm_pci_agp_init' was not declared. Should it be static?

drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c:181:1: warning: symbol 'drm_get_dirty_info_name' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c:1123:5: warning: symbol 'drm_mode_group_init' was not declared. Should it be static?

drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c:918:6: warning: symbol 'drm_mode_validate_clocks' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
      ea9cbb06
  37. 15 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  39. 08 2月, 2013 2 次提交