Nouveau - Nov 2021 - [PATCH v2 1/2] drm: Add a drm_drv_enabled() to check if drivers should be enabled

Hello Thomas,

On 11/5/21 09:43, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 04.11.21 um 21:09 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
>> Hello Jani,
>>
>> On 11/4/21 20:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2021, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * drm_drv_enabled - Checks if a DRM driver can be enabled
>>>> + * @driver: DRM driver to check
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Checks whether a DRM driver can be enabled or not. This may
be the case
>>>> + * if the "nomodeset" kernel command line parameter
is used.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int drm_drv_enabled(const struct drm_driver *driver)
> 
> Jani mentioned that i915 absolutely wants this to run from the 
> module_init function. Best is to drop the parameter.
>
Ok. I now wonder though how much value would add this function since
it will just be a wrapper around the nomodeset check.

We talked about adding a new DRIVER_GENERIC feature flag and check for
this, but as danvet mentioned that is not really needed. We just need
to avoid testing for nomodeset in the simpledrm driver.

Do you envision other condition that could be added later to disable a
DRM driver ? Or do you think that just from a code readability point of
view makes worth it ?
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (vgacon_text_force()) {
>>>> +		DRM_INFO("%s driver is disabled\n",
driver->name);
>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>> +	}
> 
> If we run this from within a module_init function, we'd get plenty of 
> these warnings if drivers are compiled into the kernel. Maybe simply 
> remove the message. There's already a warning printed by the nomodeset 
> handler.
>
Indeed. I'll just drop it.
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_drv_enabled);
>>>
>>> The name implies a bool return, but it's not.
>>>
>>> 	if (drm_drv_enabled(...)) {
>>> 		/* surprise, it's disabled! */
>>> 	}
>>>
>>
>> It used to return a bool in v2 but Thomas suggested an int instead to
>> have consistency on the errno code that was returned by the callers.
>>
>> I should probably name that function differently to avoid confusion.
> 
> Yes, please.
>
drm_driver_check() maybe ?
 
Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat

On Fri, 05 Nov 2021, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm at redhat.com>
wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> On 11/5/21 09:43, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Am 04.11.21 um 21:09 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
>>> Hello Jani,
>>>
>>> On 11/4/21 20:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2021, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * drm_drv_enabled - Checks if a DRM driver can be enabled
>>>>> + * @driver: DRM driver to check
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Checks whether a DRM driver can be enabled or not. This
may be the case
>>>>> + * if the "nomodeset" kernel command line
parameter is used.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on
failure.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int drm_drv_enabled(const struct drm_driver *driver)
>> 
>> Jani mentioned that i915 absolutely wants this to run from the 
>> module_init function. Best is to drop the parameter.
>>
>
> Ok. I now wonder though how much value would add this function since
> it will just be a wrapper around the nomodeset check.
>
> We talked about adding a new DRIVER_GENERIC feature flag and check for
> this, but as danvet mentioned that is not really needed. We just need
> to avoid testing for nomodeset in the simpledrm driver.
>
> Do you envision other condition that could be added later to disable a
> DRM driver ? Or do you think that just from a code readability point of
> view makes worth it ?
Taking a step back for perspective.

I think there's broad consensus in moving the parameter to drm, naming
the check function to drm_something_something(), and breaking the ties
to CONFIG_VGA_CONSOLE. I appreciate the work you're doing to that
effect.

I think everything beyond that is still a bit vague and/or
contentious. So how about making the first 2-3 patches just that?
Something we can all agree on, makes good progress, improves the kernel,
and gives us something to build on?

BR,
Jani.

>
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	if (vgacon_text_force()) {
>>>>> +		DRM_INFO("%s driver is disabled\n",
driver->name);
>>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +	}
>> 
>> If we run this from within a module_init function, we'd get plenty
of
>> these warnings if drivers are compiled into the kernel. Maybe simply 
>> remove the message. There's already a warning printed by the
nomodeset
>> handler.
>>
>
> Indeed. I'll just drop it.
>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_drv_enabled);
>>>>
>>>> The name implies a bool return, but it's not.
>>>>
>>>> 	if (drm_drv_enabled(...)) {
>>>> 		/* surprise, it's disabled! */
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>
>>> It used to return a bool in v2 but Thomas suggested an int instead
to
>>> have consistency on the errno code that was returned by the
callers.
>>>
>>> I should probably name that function differently to avoid
confusion.
>> 
>> Yes, please.
>>
>
> drm_driver_check() maybe ?
>  
> Best regards,
-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Hi

Am 05.11.21 um 10:48 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> Hello Thomas,
> 
> On 11/5/21 09:43, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 04.11.21 um 21:09 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
>>> Hello Jani,
>>>
>>> On 11/4/21 20:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2021, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * drm_drv_enabled - Checks if a DRM driver can be enabled
>>>>> + * @driver: DRM driver to check
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Checks whether a DRM driver can be enabled or not. This
may be the case
>>>>> + * if the "nomodeset" kernel command line
parameter is used.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on
failure.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int drm_drv_enabled(const struct drm_driver *driver)
>>
>> Jani mentioned that i915 absolutely wants this to run from the
>> module_init function. Best is to drop the parameter.
>>
> 
> Ok. I now wonder though how much value would add this function since
> it will just be a wrapper around the nomodeset check.
> 
> We talked about adding a new DRIVER_GENERIC feature flag and check for
> this, but as danvet mentioned that is not really needed. We just need
> to avoid testing for nomodeset in the simpledrm driver.
> 
> Do you envision other condition that could be added later to disable a
> DRM driver ? Or do you think that just from a code readability point of
> view makes worth it ?
DRIVER_GENERIC would have been nice, but it's not happening now.

I suggest to move over the nomodeset parameter (i.e., this patchset), 
then make the config option system agnostic, and finally add the test to 
all drivers expect simpledrm. That should solve the imminent problem.

Best regards
Thomas
> 
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	if (vgacon_text_force()) {
>>>>> +		DRM_INFO("%s driver is disabled\n",
driver->name);
>>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +	}
>>
>> If we run this from within a module_init function, we'd get plenty
of
>> these warnings if drivers are compiled into the kernel. Maybe simply
>> remove the message. There's already a warning printed by the
nomodeset
>> handler.
>>
> 
> Indeed. I'll just drop it.
> 
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_drv_enabled);
>>>>
>>>> The name implies a bool return, but it's not.
>>>>
>>>> 	if (drm_drv_enabled(...)) {
>>>> 		/* surprise, it's disabled! */
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>
>>> It used to return a bool in v2 but Thomas suggested an int instead
to
>>> have consistency on the errno code that was returned by the
callers.
>>>
>>> I should probably name that function differently to avoid
confusion.
>>
>> Yes, please.
>>
> 
> drm_driver_check() maybe ?
>   
> Best regards,
> 
-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG N?rnberg)
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Ivo Totev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20211105/0e44c4ec/attachment.sig>

On 11/5/21 11:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2021, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm at redhat.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Do you envision other condition that could be added later to disable a
>> DRM driver ? Or do you think that just from a code readability point of
>> view makes worth it ?
> 
> Taking a step back for perspective.
> 
> I think there's broad consensus in moving the parameter to drm, naming
> the check function to drm_something_something(), and breaking the ties
> to CONFIG_VGA_CONSOLE. I appreciate the work you're doing to that
> effect.
>
Thanks, I appreciate your feedback and comments.
 
> I think everything beyond that is still a bit vague and/or
> contentious. So how about making the first 2-3 patches just that?
> Something we can all agree on, makes good progress, improves the kernel,
> and gives us something to build on?
>
That works for me. Thomas, do you agree with that approach ?
 
Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat