Okay, that sounds reasonable since I don't expect this to change very quickly.
Since I don't fully understand, is the suggestion here to:
1) add the interface as a function on nvkm_gr using the nvkm_gr_func
vtable and store the actual data on r535_gr
or
2) add the interface to NVIF (which IF?) and store the actual data on nvkm_gr
?
(Sorry, I don't understand how these layers are intended to fit together.))
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 4:02 PM Danilo Krummrich <d...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 05:57:55AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > On 21/3/25 04:18, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mel,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 05:36:14PM -0400, Mel Henning wrote:
> >
> > > > @@ -72,6 +75,9 @@ struct nvkm_device {
> > > > bool armed;
> > > > bool legacy_done;
> > > > } intr;
> > > > +
> > > > + bool has_zcull_info;
> > > > + struct drm_nouveau_get_zcull_info zcull_info;
> > > This is bypassing the nvif layer entirely. I think you should store the
> > > contents
> > > of struct NV2080_CTRL_GR_GET_ZCULL_INFO_PARAMS in struct r535_gr and have
> > > an
> > > nvif interface to access the data.
> >
> > I agree here, though nvkm_gr would be a better choice for a couple of
> > reasons, not least that it's possible (and should be reasonably trivial) to
> > support this on earlier GPUs - should someone desire to at a later point.
>
> I agree, if the interface is stable enough -- I don't know whether this is
> prone
> to change or not.
