Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:56:21 +0100 Robin Murphy wrote: > > And, to be honest, for a fair bit of the common code in > > panfrost/panthorm it's common to a few other drivers too. So the correct > > answer might well be to try to add more generic helpers (devfreq, > > clocks, power domains all spring to mind - there's a lot of boiler plate > > and nothing very special about Mali). > > That much is true, however I guess there's also stuff like perf counter > support which is less likely to be DRM-level generic but perhaps still > sufficiently similar between JM and CSF. The main thing I don't know, > and thus feel compelled to poke at, is whether there's any possibility > that once the new UAPI is mature, it might eventually become preferable > to move Job Manager support over to some subset of that rather than > maintain two whole UAPIs in parallel (particularly at the Mesa end). My > (limited) understanding is that all the BO-wrangling and MMU code is > primarily different here for the sake of supporting new shiny UAPI > features, not because of anything inherent to CSF itself (other than CSF > being the thing which makes supporting said features feasible). You nailed it. The fact we went for a new driver is not so much about supporting CSF HW (though, supporting CSF with the panfrost model is challenging to be honest, even more if we want a zero-regression guarantee for pre-existing users), but more about starting from a green field so we don't have to think about supporting both GL and Vulkan models (explicit vs implicit VM maintenance, explicit vs implicit synchronization everywhere, and probably other things I forgot about). Those are things that are hard to reconcile, which makes the code even more complicated to apprehend, and more likely to break in subtle ways. Intel went for this 'new driver' approach with Xe, Nouveau didn't. I can't guarantee we took the right decision, but it definitely makes the bringup phase less painful/risky, since we don't have to make sure we don't regress existing users, and we don't have to implement wrappers/bridges for the old uAPI. As for supporting JM with the new driver, that's something we are considering, especially if we want proper Vulkan support on bifrost/valhall-non-csf at some point, but that's clearly not the priority right now.
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On 21/08/2023 18:56, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2023-08-14 12:18, Steven Price wrote: >> On 11/08/2023 20:26, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> On 2023-08-11 17:56, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On 11/08/2023 17:35, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2023-08-09 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o > > FWIW I still think it would be nice to have a minor > directory/Kconfig/Makefile reshuffle and a trivial bit of extra > registration glue to build both drivers into a single module. It > seems like it could be a perpetual source of confusion to end users > where Mesa "panfrost" is the right option but kernel "panfrost" is > the wrong one. Especially when pretty much every other GPU driver is > also just one big top-level module to load for many different > generations of hardware. Plus it would mean that if someone did want > to have a go at deduplicating the resource-wrangling boilerplate for > OPPs etc. in future, there's more chance of being able to do so > meaningfully. It might be nice to point it out, but to be fair Intel and AMD both have two (or more) drivers, as does Broadcom/RPi. As does, err ... Mali. >>> >>> Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that I'm not aware that e.g. gma500 is to >>> i915 what lima is to panfrost. It was more that unlike the others where >>> there's a pretty clear line in the sand between "driver for old >>> hardware" and "driver for the majority of recent hardware", this one >>> happens to fall splat in the middle of the current major generation such >>> that panfrost is the correct module for Mali Bifrost but also the wrong >>> one for Mali Bifrost... :/ >> >> Well panfrost.ko is the correct module for all Bifrost ;) It's Valhall >> that's the confusing one. > > Bah, you see? If even developers sufficiently involved to be CCed on the > patches can't remember what's what, what hope does Joe User have? :D > >> I would hope that for most users they can just build both panfrost and >> panthor and everything will "Just Work (tm)". I'm not sure how much >> users are actually aware of the architecture family of their GPU. >> >> I think at the moment (until marketing mess it up) there's also the >> 'simple' rule: >> >> * Mali T* is Midgard and supported by panfrost.ko >> * Mali Gxx (two digits) is Bifrost or first-generation Valhall and >> supported by panfrost.ko >> * Mali Gxxx (three digits) is Valhall CSF and supported by panthor. >> >> (and Immortalis is always three digits and Valhall CSF). > > With brain now engaged, indeed that sounds right. However if the > expectation is that most people would steer clear even of marketing's > alphabet soup and just enable everything, that could also be seen as > somewhat of an argument for just putting it all together and not > bothering with a separate option. > I can see the point, but otoh if someone's managed to build all the right regulator/clock/etc modules to get a working system, they'll probably manage to figure teh GPU side out? >>> >>> Maybe; either way I guess it's not really my concern, since I'm the only >>> user that *I* have to support, and I do already understand it. From the >>> upstream perspective I mostly just want to hold on to the hope of not >>> having to write my io-pgtable bugs twice over if at all possible :) >> >> I agree it would be nice to merge some of the common code, I'm hoping >> this is something that might be possible in the future. But at the >> moment the focus is on trying to get basic support for the new GPUs >> without the danger of regressing the old GPUs. > > Yup, I get that, it's just the niggling concern I have is whether what > we do at the moment might paint us into a corner with respect to what > we're then able to change later; I know KConfig symbols are explicitly > not ABI, but module names and driver names might be more of a grey area. > >> And, to be honest, for a fair bit of the common code in >> panfrost/panthorm it's common to a few other drivers too. So the correct >> answer might well be to try to add more generic helpers (devfreq, >> clocks, power domains all spring to mind - there's a lot of boiler plate >> and nothing very special about Mali). > > That much is true, however I guess there's also stuff like perf counter > support which is less likely to be DRM-level generic but perhaps still > sufficiently similar between JM and CSF. The main thing I don't know, > and thus feel compelled to poke at, is whether there's any possibility > that once the new UAPI is mature, it might eventually become preferable > to move Job Manager support over to some subset of that rather than > maintain two whole UAPIs in parallel (particularly at the Mesa end). My > (limited) understanding is that all the BO-wrangling and MMU code is > primarily different here for the sake of supporting new shiny UAPI > features, not because of anything inherent to CSF itself (other than CSF > being
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On 2023-08-14 12:18, Steven Price wrote: On 11/08/2023 20:26, Robin Murphy wrote: On 2023-08-11 17:56, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On 11/08/2023 17:35, Robin Murphy wrote: On 2023-08-09 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o FWIW I still think it would be nice to have a minor directory/Kconfig/Makefile reshuffle and a trivial bit of extra registration glue to build both drivers into a single module. It seems like it could be a perpetual source of confusion to end users where Mesa "panfrost" is the right option but kernel "panfrost" is the wrong one. Especially when pretty much every other GPU driver is also just one big top-level module to load for many different generations of hardware. Plus it would mean that if someone did want to have a go at deduplicating the resource-wrangling boilerplate for OPPs etc. in future, there's more chance of being able to do so meaningfully. It might be nice to point it out, but to be fair Intel and AMD both have two (or more) drivers, as does Broadcom/RPi. As does, err ... Mali. Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that I'm not aware that e.g. gma500 is to i915 what lima is to panfrost. It was more that unlike the others where there's a pretty clear line in the sand between "driver for old hardware" and "driver for the majority of recent hardware", this one happens to fall splat in the middle of the current major generation such that panfrost is the correct module for Mali Bifrost but also the wrong one for Mali Bifrost... :/ Well panfrost.ko is the correct module for all Bifrost ;) It's Valhall that's the confusing one. Bah, you see? If even developers sufficiently involved to be CCed on the patches can't remember what's what, what hope does Joe User have? :D I would hope that for most users they can just build both panfrost and panthor and everything will "Just Work (tm)". I'm not sure how much users are actually aware of the architecture family of their GPU. I think at the moment (until marketing mess it up) there's also the 'simple' rule: * Mali T* is Midgard and supported by panfrost.ko * Mali Gxx (two digits) is Bifrost or first-generation Valhall and supported by panfrost.ko * Mali Gxxx (three digits) is Valhall CSF and supported by panthor. (and Immortalis is always three digits and Valhall CSF). With brain now engaged, indeed that sounds right. However if the expectation is that most people would steer clear even of marketing's alphabet soup and just enable everything, that could also be seen as somewhat of an argument for just putting it all together and not bothering with a separate option. I can see the point, but otoh if someone's managed to build all the right regulator/clock/etc modules to get a working system, they'll probably manage to figure teh GPU side out? Maybe; either way I guess it's not really my concern, since I'm the only user that *I* have to support, and I do already understand it. From the upstream perspective I mostly just want to hold on to the hope of not having to write my io-pgtable bugs twice over if at all possible :) I agree it would be nice to merge some of the common code, I'm hoping this is something that might be possible in the future. But at the moment the focus is on trying to get basic support for the new GPUs without the danger of regressing the old GPUs. Yup, I get that, it's just the niggling concern I have is whether what we do at the moment might paint us into a corner with respect to what we're then able to change later; I know KConfig symbols are explicitly not ABI, but module names and driver names might be more of a grey area. And, to be honest, for a fair bit of the common code in panfrost/panthorm it's common to a few other drivers too. So the correct answer might well be to try to add more generic helpers (devfreq, clocks, power domains all spring to mind - there's a lot of boiler plate and nothing very special about Mali). That much is true, however I guess there's also stuff like perf counter support which is less likely to be DRM-level generic but perhaps still sufficiently similar between JM and CSF. The main thing I don't know, and thus feel compelled to poke at, is whether there's any possibility that once the new UAPI is mature, it might eventually become preferable to move Job Manager support over to some subset of that rather than maintain two whole UAPIs in parallel (particularly at the Mesa end). My (limited) understanding is that all the BO-wrangling and MMU code is primarily different here for the sake of supporting new shiny UAPI features, not because of anything inherent to CSF itself (other than CSF being the thing which makes supporting said features feasible). If that's a preposterous idea and absolutely never ever going to be realistic, then fine, but if not, then it feels like the kind of thing that my all-too-great experience of technical debt and bad short-term decisions tells me is worth planning around from
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On 09/08/2023 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Now that all blocks are available, we can add/update Kconfig/Makefile > files to allow compilation. > > v2: > - Rename the driver (pancsf -> panthor) > - Change the license (GPL2 -> MIT + GPL2) > - Split the driver addition commit > - Add new dependencies on GPUVA and DRM_SCHED > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig | 2 ++ > drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig | 16 > drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile | 15 +++ > 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig > index 2a44b9419d4d..bddfbdb2ffee 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig > @@ -358,6 +358,8 @@ source "drivers/gpu/drm/lima/Kconfig" > > source "drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/Kconfig" > > +source "drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig" > + > source "drivers/gpu/drm/aspeed/Kconfig" > > source "drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/Kconfig" > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile > index 215e78e79125..0a260727505f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_TVE200) += tve200/ > obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_XEN) += xen/ > obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_VBOXVIDEO) += vboxvideo/ > obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_LIMA) += lima/ > +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor/ > obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANFROST) += panfrost/ NIT: Here panthor is before panfrost, above (in the kconfig 'source') they are the other way around. Although both lists seem to be in an arbitrary order. > obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_ASPEED_GFX) += aspeed/ > obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_MCDE) += mcde/ > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig > new file mode 100644 > index ..a9d17b1bbb75 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or MIT > + > +config DRM_PANTHOR > + tristate "Panthor (DRM support for ARM Mali CSF-based GPUs)" > + depends on DRM > + depends on ARM || ARM64 || (COMPILE_TEST && !GENERIC_ATOMIC64) This is technically wrong. There are ARM configurations that do select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 and will cause the "select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE" to conflict with the depends of that option. Splitting it onto two lines, like panfrost does, matches the iommu config and I think is easier to read: depends on ARM || ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST depends on !GENERIC_ATOMIC64# for IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE Steve > + depends on MMU > + select DRM_EXEC > + select DRM_SCHED > + select IOMMU_SUPPORT > + select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE > + select DRM_GEM_SHMEM_HELPER > + select PM_DEVFREQ > + select DEVFREQ_GOV_SIMPLE_ONDEMAND > + help > + DRM driver for ARM Mali CSF-based GPUs. It might be worth expanding this to mention Valhall and/or Mali-Gxxx. Steve > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile > b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile > new file mode 100644 > index ..64193a484879 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or MIT > + > +panthor-y := \ > + panthor_devfreq.o \ > + panthor_device.o \ > + panthor_drv.o \ > + panthor_gem.o \ > + panthor_gpu.o \ > + panthor_heap.o \ > + panthor_heap.o \ > + panthor_fw.o \ > + panthor_mmu.o \ > + panthor_sched.o > + > +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On 11/08/2023 20:26, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2023-08-11 17:56, Daniel Stone wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 11/08/2023 17:35, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> On 2023-08-09 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o >>> >>> FWIW I still think it would be nice to have a minor >>> directory/Kconfig/Makefile reshuffle and a trivial bit of extra >>> registration glue to build both drivers into a single module. It >>> seems like it could be a perpetual source of confusion to end users >>> where Mesa "panfrost" is the right option but kernel "panfrost" is >>> the wrong one. Especially when pretty much every other GPU driver is >>> also just one big top-level module to load for many different >>> generations of hardware. Plus it would mean that if someone did want >>> to have a go at deduplicating the resource-wrangling boilerplate for >>> OPPs etc. in future, there's more chance of being able to do so >>> meaningfully. >> >> It might be nice to point it out, but to be fair Intel and AMD both >> have two (or more) drivers, as does Broadcom/RPi. As does, err ... Mali. > > Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that I'm not aware that e.g. gma500 is to > i915 what lima is to panfrost. It was more that unlike the others where > there's a pretty clear line in the sand between "driver for old > hardware" and "driver for the majority of recent hardware", this one > happens to fall splat in the middle of the current major generation such > that panfrost is the correct module for Mali Bifrost but also the wrong > one for Mali Bifrost... :/ Well panfrost.ko is the correct module for all Bifrost ;) It's Valhall that's the confusing one. I would hope that for most users they can just build both panfrost and panthor and everything will "Just Work (tm)". I'm not sure how much users are actually aware of the architecture family of their GPU. I think at the moment (until marketing mess it up) there's also the 'simple' rule: * Mali T* is Midgard and supported by panfrost.ko * Mali Gxx (two digits) is Bifrost or first-generation Valhall and supported by panfrost.ko * Mali Gxxx (three digits) is Valhall CSF and supported by panthor. (and Immortalis is always three digits and Valhall CSF). > >> I can see the point, but otoh if someone's managed to build all the >> right regulator/clock/etc modules to get a working system, they'll >> probably manage to figure teh GPU side out? > > Maybe; either way I guess it's not really my concern, since I'm the only > user that *I* have to support, and I do already understand it. From the > upstream perspective I mostly just want to hold on to the hope of not > having to write my io-pgtable bugs twice over if at all possible :) I agree it would be nice to merge some of the common code, I'm hoping this is something that might be possible in the future. But at the moment the focus is on trying to get basic support for the new GPUs without the danger of regressing the old GPUs. And, to be honest, for a fair bit of the common code in panfrost/panthorm it's common to a few other drivers too. So the correct answer might well be to try to add more generic helpers (devfreq, clocks, power domains all spring to mind - there's a lot of boiler plate and nothing very special about Mali). Steve
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On 2023-08-11 17:56, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On 11/08/2023 17:35, Robin Murphy wrote: On 2023-08-09 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o FWIW I still think it would be nice to have a minor directory/Kconfig/Makefile reshuffle and a trivial bit of extra registration glue to build both drivers into a single module. It seems like it could be a perpetual source of confusion to end users where Mesa "panfrost" is the right option but kernel "panfrost" is the wrong one. Especially when pretty much every other GPU driver is also just one big top-level module to load for many different generations of hardware. Plus it would mean that if someone did want to have a go at deduplicating the resource-wrangling boilerplate for OPPs etc. in future, there's more chance of being able to do so meaningfully. It might be nice to point it out, but to be fair Intel and AMD both have two (or more) drivers, as does Broadcom/RPi. As does, err ... Mali. Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that I'm not aware that e.g. gma500 is to i915 what lima is to panfrost. It was more that unlike the others where there's a pretty clear line in the sand between "driver for old hardware" and "driver for the majority of recent hardware", this one happens to fall splat in the middle of the current major generation such that panfrost is the correct module for Mali Bifrost but also the wrong one for Mali Bifrost... :/ I can see the point, but otoh if someone's managed to build all the right regulator/clock/etc modules to get a working system, they'll probably manage to figure teh GPU side out? Maybe; either way I guess it's not really my concern, since I'm the only user that *I* have to support, and I do already understand it. From the upstream perspective I mostly just want to hold on to the hope of not having to write my io-pgtable bugs twice over if at all possible :) Cheers, Robin.
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
Hi, On 11/08/2023 17:35, Robin Murphy wrote: On 2023-08-09 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o FWIW I still think it would be nice to have a minor directory/Kconfig/Makefile reshuffle and a trivial bit of extra registration glue to build both drivers into a single module. It seems like it could be a perpetual source of confusion to end users where Mesa "panfrost" is the right option but kernel "panfrost" is the wrong one. Especially when pretty much every other GPU driver is also just one big top-level module to load for many different generations of hardware. Plus it would mean that if someone did want to have a go at deduplicating the resource-wrangling boilerplate for OPPs etc. in future, there's more chance of being able to do so meaningfully. It might be nice to point it out, but to be fair Intel and AMD both have two (or more) drivers, as does Broadcom/RPi. As does, err ... Mali. I can see the point, but otoh if someone's managed to build all the right regulator/clock/etc modules to get a working system, they'll probably manage to figure teh GPU side out? Cheers, Daniel
Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
On 2023-08-09 17:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: Now that all blocks are available, we can add/update Kconfig/Makefile files to allow compilation. v2: - Rename the driver (pancsf -> panthor) - Change the license (GPL2 -> MIT + GPL2) - Split the driver addition commit - Add new dependencies on GPUVA and DRM_SCHED Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon --- drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig | 2 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig | 16 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile | 15 +++ 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig index 2a44b9419d4d..bddfbdb2ffee 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig @@ -358,6 +358,8 @@ source "drivers/gpu/drm/lima/Kconfig" source "drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/Kconfig" +source "drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig" + source "drivers/gpu/drm/aspeed/Kconfig" source "drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/Kconfig" diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile index 215e78e79125..0a260727505f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_TVE200) += tve200/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_XEN) += xen/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_VBOXVIDEO) += vboxvideo/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_LIMA) += lima/ +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANFROST) += panfrost/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_ASPEED_GFX) += aspeed/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_MCDE) += mcde/ diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig new file mode 100644 index ..a9d17b1bbb75 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or MIT + +config DRM_PANTHOR + tristate "Panthor (DRM support for ARM Mali CSF-based GPUs)" + depends on DRM + depends on ARM || ARM64 || (COMPILE_TEST && !GENERIC_ATOMIC64) + depends on MMU + select DRM_EXEC + select DRM_SCHED + select IOMMU_SUPPORT + select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE + select DRM_GEM_SHMEM_HELPER + select PM_DEVFREQ + select DEVFREQ_GOV_SIMPLE_ONDEMAND + help + DRM driver for ARM Mali CSF-based GPUs. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile new file mode 100644 index ..64193a484879 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or MIT + +panthor-y := \ + panthor_devfreq.o \ + panthor_device.o \ + panthor_drv.o \ + panthor_gem.o \ + panthor_gpu.o \ + panthor_heap.o \ + panthor_heap.o \ + panthor_fw.o \ + panthor_mmu.o \ + panthor_sched.o + +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o FWIW I still think it would be nice to have a minor directory/Kconfig/Makefile reshuffle and a trivial bit of extra registration glue to build both drivers into a single module. It seems like it could be a perpetual source of confusion to end users where Mesa "panfrost" is the right option but kernel "panfrost" is the wrong one. Especially when pretty much every other GPU driver is also just one big top-level module to load for many different generations of hardware. Plus it would mean that if someone did want to have a go at deduplicating the resource-wrangling boilerplate for OPPs etc. in future, there's more chance of being able to do so meaningfully. Cheers, Robin.
[PATCH v2 13/15] drm/panthor: Allow driver compilation
Now that all blocks are available, we can add/update Kconfig/Makefile files to allow compilation. v2: - Rename the driver (pancsf -> panthor) - Change the license (GPL2 -> MIT + GPL2) - Split the driver addition commit - Add new dependencies on GPUVA and DRM_SCHED Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon --- drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig | 2 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig | 16 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile | 15 +++ 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig index 2a44b9419d4d..bddfbdb2ffee 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig @@ -358,6 +358,8 @@ source "drivers/gpu/drm/lima/Kconfig" source "drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/Kconfig" +source "drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig" + source "drivers/gpu/drm/aspeed/Kconfig" source "drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/Kconfig" diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile index 215e78e79125..0a260727505f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_TVE200) += tve200/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_XEN) += xen/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_VBOXVIDEO) += vboxvideo/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_LIMA) += lima/ +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANFROST) += panfrost/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_ASPEED_GFX) += aspeed/ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_MCDE) += mcde/ diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig new file mode 100644 index ..a9d17b1bbb75 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or MIT + +config DRM_PANTHOR + tristate "Panthor (DRM support for ARM Mali CSF-based GPUs)" + depends on DRM + depends on ARM || ARM64 || (COMPILE_TEST && !GENERIC_ATOMIC64) + depends on MMU + select DRM_EXEC + select DRM_SCHED + select IOMMU_SUPPORT + select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE + select DRM_GEM_SHMEM_HELPER + select PM_DEVFREQ + select DEVFREQ_GOV_SIMPLE_ONDEMAND + help + DRM driver for ARM Mali CSF-based GPUs. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile new file mode 100644 index ..64193a484879 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or MIT + +panthor-y := \ + panthor_devfreq.o \ + panthor_device.o \ + panthor_drv.o \ + panthor_gem.o \ + panthor_gpu.o \ + panthor_heap.o \ + panthor_heap.o \ + panthor_fw.o \ + panthor_mmu.o \ + panthor_sched.o + +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANTHOR) += panthor.o -- 2.41.0
