On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 08:49:08PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:20:58PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 01:53:53PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Always require PIN_GLOBAL when we want a mappable offset (PIN_MAPPABLE). > > > This causes the pin to fixup the global binding in cases were the vma > > > was already bound (and due to the proceeding bug, we considered it to be > > > already mappable). > > > > > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85671 > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 2 +- > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > index fe6c602a2a00..0c82a4d2cd0c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > @@ -3479,7 +3479,7 @@ search_free: > > > > > > trace_i915_vma_bind(vma, flags); > > > vma->bind_vma(vma, obj->cache_level, > > > - flags & (PIN_MAPPABLE | PIN_GLOBAL) ? GLOBAL_BIND : 0); > > > + flags & PIN_GLOBAL ? GLOBAL_BIND : 0); > > > > Hm, why this? If we want to reduce the interface complexity maybe we > > should throw in a WARN_ON if PIN_MAPPABLE is set, but PIN_GLOBAL isnt? > > Just removing this safeguard make me a bit uneasy ... > > Just review all the users, takes less than 2 minutes ;) > It's a wart in the interface, which should do as I say, not guess, and > PIN_MAPPABLE doesn't translate well to GLOBAL_BIND imo. I don't object to the functional change, it makes sense. But I think throwing in the safeguard WARN_ON would be useful. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
