Hi Rob,
On 2 August 2013 06:03, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Vikas,
>>
>> On Thursday 01 of August 2013 16:49:32 Vikas Sajjan wrote:
>>> While trying to get boot-logo up on exynos5420 SMDK which has eDP panel
>>> connected with resolution 2560x1600, following error occured even with
>>> IOMMU enabled:
>>> [0.880000] [drm:lowlevel_buffer_allocate] *ERROR* failed to allocate
>>> buffer. [0.890000] [drm] Initialized exynos 1.0.0 20110530 on minor 0
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the issue by adding a check for IOMMU.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar <arun.kk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fbdev.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fbdev.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fbdev.c index 8e60bd6..2a86666
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fbdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fbdev.c
>>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>>> #include <drm/drm_crtc.h>
>>> #include <drm/drm_fb_helper.h>
>>> #include <drm/drm_crtc_helper.h>
>>> +#include <drm/exynos_drm.h>
>>>
>>> #include "exynos_drm_drv.h"
>>> #include "exynos_drm_fb.h"
>>> @@ -143,6 +144,7 @@ static int exynos_drm_fbdev_create(struct
>>> drm_fb_helper *helper, struct platform_device *pdev = dev->platformdev;
>>> unsigned long size;
>>> int ret;
>>> + unsigned int flag;
>>>
>>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("surface width(%d), height(%d) and bpp(%d\n",
>>> sizes->surface_width, sizes->surface_height,
>>> @@ -166,7 +168,12 @@ static int exynos_drm_fbdev_create(struct
>>> drm_fb_helper *helper, size = mode_cmd.pitches[0] * mode_cmd.height;
>>>
>>> /* 0 means to allocate physically continuous memory */
>>> - exynos_gem_obj = exynos_drm_gem_create(dev, 0, size);
>>> + if (!is_drm_iommu_supported(dev))
>>> + flag = 0;
>>> + else
>>> + flag = EXYNOS_BO_NONCONTIG;
>>
>> While noncontig memory might be used for devices that support IOMMU, there
>> should be no problem with using contig memory for them, so this seems more
>> like masking the original problem rather than tracking it down.
>
> it is probably a good idea to not require contig memory when it is not
> needed for performance or functionality (and if it is only
> performance, then fallback gracefully to non-contig).. but yeah, would
> be good to know if this is masking another issue all the same
>
Whats happening with CONTIG flag and with IOMMU, is
__iommu_alloc_buffer() ---> dma_alloc_from_contiguous() and in this
function it fails at
this condition check if (pageno >= cma->count)
So I tried increasing the CONFIG_CMA_SIZE_MBYTES to 24, this check
succeeds and it works well without my patch.
But what about the case where CONFIG_CMA is disabled , yet i want
bigger memory for a device.
I think using IOMMU we can achieve this.
correct me, if i am wrong.
> BR,
> -R
>
>> Could you check why the allocation fails when requesting contiguous
>> memory?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tomasz
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Thanks and Regards
Vikas Sajjan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
