[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Restore all GGTT VMAs on resume

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 07/08/2015 10:32 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:19:01PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:15:01PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>
>>> When rotated and partial views were added no one spotted the resume
>>> path which assumes only one GGTT VMA per object and hence is now
>>> skipping rebind of alternative views.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> Similarly to my recent debugfs patch, it would seem quicker path could
>>> be to walk GGTT active & inactive lists, but I assume we want to call
>>> i915_gem_clflush_object only once per object which would make that
>>> problematic.
>
> Patch is missing offending commit that introduce this issue and which
> platforms are affected (I guess all due to partial view?). Also should be
> cc: stable I presume?
>
> Can you please supply this so I can ammend the commit message? Applied to
> -fixes meanwhile, thanks.

Ha, "offending" commits. In the sense of that the bug only manifests
when they are present they are either of these two:

commit c5ad54cf7dd8922bd1cee2d5871aebf73dc9638e
Author: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed May 6 14:36:09 2015 +0300

     drm/i915: Use partial view in mmap fault handler

commit 3b7a5119b5d2def1161226a4c6a643db537dff7e
Author: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal at intel.com>
Date:   Fri Apr 10 14:37:29 2015 +0530

     drm/i915/skl: Support for 90/270 rotation

But they are just the tips of two longish streams of developments
so they should not necessarily be viewed as offending towards the 
respective authors. They are just final feature enablements.

All platforms are affected due to partial views I suppose, although I am 
not sure if they are actually used/triggered in the field. That's why I 
was not sure should stable be copied.

Regards,

Tvrtko