On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke jkardatzke@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz jstultz@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:21 AM Yong Wu yong.wu@mediatek.com wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
struct restricted_heap { const char *name;
const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;+};
+struct restricted_heap_ops {
int (*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);int (*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);void (*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);int (*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);void (*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);};
int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
So, I'm a little worried here, because you're basically turning the restricted_heap dma-buf heap driver into a framework itself. Where this patch is creating a subdriver framework.
Part of my hesitancy, is you're introducing this under the dma-buf heaps. For things like CMA, that's more of a core subsystem that has multiple users, and exporting cma buffers via dmabuf heaps is just an additional interface. What I like about that is the core kernel has to define the semantics for the memory type and then the dmabuf heap is just exporting that well understood type of buffer.
But with these restricted buffers, I'm not sure there's yet a well understood set of semantics nor a central abstraction for that which other drivers use directly.
I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface, it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.
In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The
Ah, I appreciate that clarification! Indeed, you're right the name is passed through. Apologies for missing that detail.
restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself. Unless I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's *supposed* to be.
So I guess I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the extra indirection. What then does the restricted_heap.c logic itself provide? The dmabuf heaps framework already provides a way to add heap implementations.
thanks -john