Well, mostly drm_file.h, and clean up all related things:
- I didnt' figure out the difference between preclose and postclose.
The existing explanation in drm-internals.rst didn't convince me,
since it's also really outdated - we clean up pending DRM events in
the core nowadays. I put a FIXME in for the future.
- Another FIXME is to have a macro for default fops.
- Lots of links all around, main areas are to tie the overview in
drm_file.c more into the callbacks in struct drm_device, and the
other is to link render/primary node code to the right sections in
drm-uapi.rst.
- Also moved the open/close stuff to drm_drv.h from drm-internals.rst,
seems like the better place for that information. Since that section
was rather outdated this amounted to full-on rewrite.
A big missing piece here is some overview graph, but I think better to
wait with that one until drm_device and drm_driver are also fully
documented.
v2: Nits from Sean.
Reviewed-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20170308141257.12119-12-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
We might as well dump the drm_file pointer, that's about as useful
a cookie as the pid. Noticed while typing docs for drm_file and friends.
Since the only consumer of this is the tracepoints I think we can safely
change this - those tracepoints should not be uapi relevant at all. It
all goes back to
commit b9c2c9ae88
Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date: Thu Jul 1 16:48:09 2010 -0700
drm: add per-event vblank event trace points
which doesn't give a special justification for using pid over a pointer.
Also note that the nouveau code setting it is entirely pointless:
Since this isn't a vblank event, it will never hit the vblank
tracepoints.
Cc: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20170308141257.12119-11-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
I'm torn on whether drm_minor really should be here or somewhere else.
Maybe with more clarity after untangling drmP.h more this is easier to
decide, for now I've put a FIXME comment right next to it. Right now
we need struct drm_minor for the inline drm_file type helpers, and so
it does kinda make sense to have them here.
Next patch will kerneldoc-ify the entire pile.
Reviewed-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20170308141257.12119-10-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
