Am 27.05.19 um 10:41 schrieb Emily Deng:
As it will destroy clear_state_obj, and also will
unpin it in the gfx_v9_0_sw_fini, so don't need to
call csb_vram unpin in gfx_v9_0_hw_fini, or it will
have unpin warning.
v2: For suspend, still need to do unpin
Signed-off-by: Emily Deng <Emily.Deng@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c
index 5eb70e8..5b1ff48 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c
@@ -3395,7 +3395,8 @@ static int gfx_v9_0_hw_fini(void *handle)
gfx_v9_0_cp_enable(adev, false);
adev->gfx.rlc.funcs->stop(adev);
- gfx_v9_0_csb_vram_unpin(adev);
+ if (adev->in_suspend)
+ gfx_v9_0_csb_vram_unpin(adev);
That doesn't looks like a good idea to me.
Why do we have unpin both in the sw_fini as well as the hw_fini code paths?
Regards,
Christian.
return 0;
}
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
