On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 14:10:45 +0200 Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c > >> @@ -254,6 +254,9 @@ static int panfrost_acquire_object_fences(struct panfrost_job *job) > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> + if (job->bo_flags[i] & PANFROST_BO_REF_NO_IMPLICIT_DEP) > >> + continue; > > This breaks dma_resv rules. I'll send out patch set fixing this pattern in > > other drivers, I'll ping you on that for what you need to change. Should > > go out today or so. I guess you're talking about [1]. TBH, I don't quite see the point of exposing a 'no-implicit' flag if we end up forcing this implicit dep anyway, but I'm probably missing something. > > I'm really wondering if the behavior that the exclusive fences replaces > all the shared fences was such a good idea. Is that what's done in [1], or are you talking about a different patchset/approach? > > It just allows drivers to mess up things in a way which can be easily > used to compromise the system. I must admit I'm a bit lost, so I'm tempted to drop that flag for now :-). [1]https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/443711/?series=92334&rev=3
