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

Hi

Am 05.11.21 um 10:48 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:

Hello Thomas,

On 11/5/21 09:43, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

quoted

Hi

Am 04.11.21 um 21:09 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:

quoted

Hello Jani,

On 11/4/21 20:57, Jani Nikula wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 04 Nov 2021, Javier Martinez Canillas [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+/**
+ * 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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+{
+	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.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+	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 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev