On 04/11/2014 04:31 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Thierry Reding >>> <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:24PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>>>> GK20A's timer is directly attached to the system timer and cannot be >>>>> calibrated. Skip the calibration phase on that chip since the >>>>> corresponding registers do not exist. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot at nvidia.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c | 19 >>>>> +++++++++++++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>> index c0bdd10358d7..822fe0d8a871 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/timer/nv04.c >>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ nv04_timer_init(struct nouveau_object *object) >>>>> if (ret) >>>>> return ret; >>>>> >>>>> + /* gk20a does not have the calibration registers */ >>>>> + if (device->chipset == 0xea) >>>>> + goto skip_clk_init; >>>> >>>> I'm concerned that this won't scale in the future. Perhaps a better >>>> solution would be to add a "flags" or "features" field to struct >>>> nouveau_device along with feature bits such as HAS_CALIBRATION or >>>> similar. >>>> >>>> That way we don't have to touch this code for every new future Tegra >>>> chip. Unless perhaps if there's a reason to expect things to change in >>>> newer generations. >>> I've already handled this in a slightly different way in the tree I'd >>> previously pointed Alex at (I think!), as I needed to do the same for >>> GM107. >>> >>> Should just be able to use that implementation (so, just change the >>> probe patch) here too. >> >> I will skip this patch and use your implementation then. Btw, >> shouldn't the source file for the GK20A implementation be named nvea.c >> instead of gk20a.c? > For the Maxwell stuff I've been using "gm107" now too. Since we're > working with you guys these days it seems better to use the same names > for things ;)
So would you like us to use the same naming scheme as well? So far all my patches use "nvea.c" whenever I need to add code.
