Message-ID: <7ejh5uoppa257ap64ps33wrtabn4iu6flf4fn5lqhuuhbtmpjj@25rqv7mnko5q>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:38:28 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@...ux.dev>
Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, 
	Russell King <linux+etnaviv@...linux.org.uk>, Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@...il.com>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, etnaviv@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [etnaviv-next v13 7/7] drm/etnaviv: Add support for vivante
 GPU cores attached via PCI(e)

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:25:33AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2024/2/9 23:15, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 12:02:48PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 04:27:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 10:35:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:27:59AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > > > > The component helper functions are the glue, which is used to bind multiple
> > > > > > GPU cores to a virtual master platform device. Which is fine and works well
> > > > > > for the SoCs who contains multiple GPU cores.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The problem is that usperspace programs (such as X server and Mesa) will
> > > > > > search the PCIe device to use if it is exist. In other words, usperspace
> > > > > > programs open the PCIe device with higher priority. Creating a virtual
> > > > > > master platform device for PCI(e) GPUs is unnecessary, as the PCI device
> > > > > > has been created by the time drm/etnaviv is loaded.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > we create virtual platform devices as a representation for the vivante GPU
> > > > > > ip core. As all of subcomponent are attached via the PCIe master device,
> > > > > > we reflect this hardware layout by binding all of the virtual child to the
> > > > > > the real master.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@...ux.dev>
> > > > > Uh so my understanding is that drivers really shouldn't create platform
> > > > > devices of their own. For this case here I think the aux-bus framework is
> > > > > the right thing to use. Alternatively would be some infrastructure where
> > > > > you feed a DT tree to driver core or pci subsystem and it instantiates it
> > > > > all for you correctly, and especially with hotunplug all done right since
> > > > > this is pci now, not actually part of the soc that cannot be hotunplugged.
> > > > I don't think we need intermediate platform devices at all. We just need
> > > > to register our GPU against the PCI device and that's it. We don't need
> > > > a platform device, we don't need the component framework.
> > > Afaik that's what this series does. The component stuff is for the
> > > internal structure of the gpu ip, so that the same modular approach that
> > > works for arm-soc also works for pci chips.
> > But there should be a single PCI device, while we have multiple "DT"
> > devices, right? Or is there several PCI devices too on that PCI card?
> 
> 
> There is only a single PCI(e) device on that PCI(e) card, this single
> PCI(e) device is selected as the component master. All other Hardware IP
> blocks are shipped by the single PCI(e) master. It may includes Display
> controllers, GPUs, video decoders, HDMI display bridges hardware unit etc.
> 
> But all of those Hardware IP share the same MMIO registers PCI BAR, this
> PCI BAR is a kind of PCI(e) MEM resource. It is a relative *big* chunk,
> as large as 32MB in address ranges for the JingJia Macro dGPU. Therefore,
> I break the whole registers memory(MMIO) resource into smaller pieces by
> creating platform device manually, manually created platform device is
> called as virtual child in this series.
> 
> In short, we cut the whole into smaller piece, each smaller piece is a
> single hardware IP block, thus deserve a single device driver. We will
> have multiple platform devices if the dGPU contains multiple hardware
> IP block. On the driver side, we bind all of the scattered driver module
> with component.

That's kind of my point then. If there's a single device, there's no
need to create intermediate devices and use the component framework to
tie them all together. You can have a simpler approach where you create
a function that takes the memory area it operates on (and whatever
additional resource it needs: interrupt, clocks, etc.) and call that
directly from the PCIe device probe, and the MMIO device bind.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists