On 21.6.2022 13.53, Matthew Auld wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 10:38, Juha-Pekka Heikkila
<juhapekka.heikkila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10.6.2022 20.43, Matthew Auld wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 15:53, Matthew Auld
<matthew.william.auld@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 13:12, Juha-Pekka Heikkila
<juhapekka.heikkila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: CQ Tang <cq.tang@xxxxxxxxx>
Display might allocate a smem object and call
i915_vma_pin_iomap(), the existing code will fail.
This fix was suggested by Chris P Wilson, that we pin
the smem with i915_gem_object_pin_map_unlocked().
v2 (jheikkil): Change i915_gem_object_pin_map_unlocked to
i915_gem_object_pin_map
Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jari Tahvanainen <jari.tahvanainen@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
Although maybe consider putting this as patch 1, and then reword the
commit title/message to be more like "drm/i915: extend
i915_vma_iomap()" or so, which then becomes a prep patch for
supporting the dpt fallback to smem. Otherwise it looks like this
patch is basically just fixing the first patch to not trigger the
WARN_ON(), which seems iffy IMO. Each patch by itself should ideally
be functional.
Probably easiest is to put patch 1 in as last, it's the final customer
for these two other patches. This way if someone will end up doing
bisecting there would be nothing interesting to see with these.
I did finally get ci to look all green after last weeks outages. I'd
guess these patches are ready to be pushed but I don't have commit
rights to drm-tip. Are you able to help with these or I'll go bother
Imre or Jani to get them into tip?
Ok, if no objections I will go ahead and push this to
drm-intel-gt-next, with the tweaked patch ordering.
No objections. I had this set yet on test run on Imre's wish on try-bot
with forcing adlp (on bat) to use smem and results were all clean.
/Juha-Pekka
