On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 25/10/2016 15:09, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:00:24PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>Objects can have multiple VMAs used for display in which > >>case assertion that objects must not be pinned for display > >>more times than their single display related VMA is incorrect. > > > >But each of those vma are pinned, as many times as they are used by > >display. This explanation doesn't hold. > > We can have a normal and a rotated vma, each pinned once, object > pinned therefore pinned to display twice. Oh, vma_pin_count not obj_pin_count. Bleh. Is the warn useful to keep, and so we need to iterate over all vma? Probably not. Especially as we then start asking questions like, should we track pin_display on the vma as well for better accuracy in their assertion s/their single dislay related/the current/ Ok, I don't have a great idea for replacing it with some other early warning signal. With the slight tweak to the changelog, Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
