On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:52 AM Dmitry Osipenko
<dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
> > +/*
> > + * Get the requested iova but don't pin it. Fails if the requested iova is
> > + * not available. Doesn't need a put because iovas are currently valid for
> > + * the life of the object.
> > + *
> > + * Setting an iova of zero will clear the vma.
> > + */
> > +int msm_gem_set_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
> > + struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t iova)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
>
> nit: No need to initialize the ret
actually, we do
> > + msm_gem_lock(obj);
> > + if (!iova) {
> > + ret = clear_iova(obj, aspace);
> > + } else {
> > + struct msm_gem_vma *vma;
> > + vma = get_vma_locked(obj, aspace, iova, iova + obj->size);
> > + if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(vma);
> > + } else if (GEM_WARN_ON(vma->iova != iova)) {
> > + clear_iova(obj, aspace);
> > + ret = -ENOSPC;
>
> The (vma->iova != iova) means that vma is already set, but to a
> different address. Is -ENOSPC really appropriate here? -EBUSY or -EINVAL
> looks more natural to me.
yeah, -EBUSY is better
> > + }
> > + }
> > + msm_gem_unlock(obj);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Unpin a iova by updating the reference counts. The memory isn't actually
> > * purged until something else (shrinker, mm_notifier, destroy, etc) decides
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h
> > index 38d66e1248b1..efa2e5c19f1e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h
> > @@ -38,6 +38,12 @@ struct msm_gem_address_space {
> >
> > /* @faults: the number of GPU hangs associated with this address space */
> > int faults;
> > +
> > + /** @va_start: lowest possible address to allocate */
> > + uint64_t va_start;
> > +
> > + /** @va_size: the size of the address space (in bytes) */
> > + uint64_t va_size;
> > };
> >
> > struct msm_gem_address_space *
> > @@ -144,6 +150,8 @@ struct msm_gem_vma *msm_gem_get_vma_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
> > struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace);
> > int msm_gem_get_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
> > struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t *iova);
> > +int msm_gem_set_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
> > + struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t iova);
> > int msm_gem_get_and_pin_iova_range(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
> > struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t *iova,
> > u64 range_start, u64 range_end);
> nit: There is an odd mix of uint64_t and u64 (and alike) in the MSM code
> :) The uint64_t variant shouldn't be used by kernel code in general and
> checkpatch should want about it.
one of many things that I disagree with checkpatch about ;-)
I prefer standard types to custom ones. I _kinda_ get the argument in
case of uapi (but IMHO that doesn't apply to how drm uapi headers are
used)
BR,
-R
