On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:04 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 09:10:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:27:06 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew you will not be pushing this patchset in 5.1 ?
> >
> > I'd like to. It sounds like we're converging on a plan.
> >
> > It would be good to hear more from the driver developers who will be
> > consuming these new features - links to patchsets, review feedback,
> > etc. Which individuals should we be asking? Felix, Christian and
> > Jason, perhaps?
> >
>
> So i am guessing you will not send this to Linus ? Should i repost ?
> This patchset has 2 sides, first side is just reworking the HMM API
> to make something better in respect to process lifetime. AMD folks
> did find that helpful [1]. This rework is also necessary to ease up
> the convertion of ODP to HMM [2] and Jason already said that he is
> interested in seing that happening [3]. By missing 5.1 it means now
> that i can not push ODP to HMM in 5.2 and it will be postpone to 5.3
> which is also postoning other work ...
>
> The second side is it adds 2 new helper dma map and dma unmap both
> are gonna be use by ODP and latter by nouveau (after some other
> nouveau changes are done). This new functions just do dma_map ie:
> hmm_dma_map() {
> existing_hmm_api()
> for_each_page() {
> dma_map_page()
> }
> }
>
> Do you want to see anymore justification than that ?
Yes, why does hmm needs its own dma mapping apis? It seems to
perpetuate the perception that hmm is something bolted onto the side
of the core-mm rather than a native capability.
