On 03/06/2017 09:00 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 6 March 2017 at 10:29, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:46:03AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2017 08:39 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 03 Mar 2017 10:56:54 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:38PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>>>>> Now that we call dma_map in the dma_buf API callbacks there is no need
>>>>>> to use the existing cache APIs. Remove the sync ioctl and the existing
>>>>>> bad dma_sync calls. Explicit caching can be handled with the dma_buf
>>>>>> sync API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labb...@redhat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion-ioctl.c | 5 ----
>>>>>> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c | 40
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_carveout_heap.c | 6 ----
>>>>>> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_chunk_heap.c | 6 ----
>>>>>> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_page_pool.c | 3 --
>>>>>> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c | 5 ----
>>>>>> 6 files changed, 65 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion-ioctl.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion-ioctl.c index 5b2e93f..f820d77 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion-ioctl.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion-ioctl.c
>>>>>> @@ -146,11 +146,6 @@ long ion_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
>>>>>> unsigned long arg)>
>>>>>> data.handle.handle = handle->id;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - case ION_IOC_SYNC:
>>>>>> - {
>>>>>> - ret = ion_sync_for_device(client, data.fd.fd);
>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>> - }
>>>>>
>>>>> You missed the case ION_IOC_SYNC: in compat_ion.c.
>>>>>
>>>>> While at it: Should we also remove the entire custom_ioctl infrastructure?
>>>>> It's entirely unused afaict, and for a pure buffer allocator I don't see
>>>>> any need to have custom ioctl.
>>>>
>>>> I second that, if you want to make ion a standard API, then we certainly
>>>> don't
>>>> want any custom ioctl.
>>>>
>>>>> More code to remove potentially:
>>>>> - The entire compat ioctl stuff - would be an abi break, but I guess if we
>>>>> pick the 32bit abi and clean up the uapi headers we'll be mostly fine.
>>>>> would allow us to remove compat_ion.c entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> - ION_IOC_IMPORT: With this ion is purely an allocator, so not sure we
>>>>> still need to be able to import anything. All the cache flushing/mapping
>>>>> is done through dma-buf ops/ioctls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Good point to all of the above. I was considering keeping the import around
>>> for backwards compatibility reasons but given how much other stuff is being
>>> potentially broken, everything should just get ripped out.
>>
>> If you're ok with breaking the world, then I strongly suggest we go
>> through the uapi header and replace all types with the standard
>> fixed-width ones (__s32, __s64 and __u32, __u64). Allows us to remove all
>> the compat ioctl code :-)
>
> I think the other comments from your "botching-up ioctls" [1] also apply ;-)
> Namely - align structs to multiple of 64bit, add "flags" and properly
> verity user input returning -EINVAL.
>
> -Emil
>
> [1]
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.txt
I'm more torn on this. There's a difference between dropping an old
ioctl/implicit caching vs. changing an actual ioctl ABI.
Maybe having obvious breakage is better than subtle though,
plus nobody has come begging me not to break the ABI yet.
I might leave this for right before we do the actual move
out of staging.
Thanks,
Laura
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
