[PATCH 1/7] drm/nouveau: use bo->base.size instead of mem->num_pages

[Matthew Auld]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 14:52, Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Change a couple of cases where it makes more sense to use the base size
> instead of the number of pages in the resource.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c    | 9 ++++-----
>  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fbcon.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c   | 4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
> index 2d5d68fc15c2..6dbcbe2fa55f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
> @@ -302,7 +302,6 @@ nouveau_bo_init(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo, u64 size, int align, u32 domain,
>         int type = sg ? ttm_bo_type_sg : ttm_bo_type_device;
>         int ret;
>
> -       nvbo->bo.mem.num_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;

So this was redundant, since ttm_bo_init_reserved() already did this for us?

>         nouveau_bo_placement_set(nvbo, domain, 0);
>         INIT_LIST_HEAD(&nvbo->io_reserve_lru);
>
> @@ -364,12 +363,12 @@ static void
>  set_placement_range(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo, uint32_t domain)
>  {
>         struct nouveau_drm *drm = nouveau_bdev(nvbo->bo.bdev);
> -       u32 vram_pages = drm->client.device.info.ram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +       u64 vram_size = drm->client.device.info.ram_size;
>         unsigned i, fpfn, lpfn;
>
>         if (drm->client.device.info.family == NV_DEVICE_INFO_V0_CELSIUS &&
>             nvbo->mode && (domain & NOUVEAU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) &&
> -           nvbo->bo.mem.num_pages < vram_pages / 4) {
> +           nvbo->bo.base.size < vram_size / 4) {
>                 /*
>                  * Make sure that the color and depth buffers are handled
>                  * by independent memory controller units. Up to a 9x
> @@ -377,11 +376,11 @@ set_placement_range(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo, uint32_t domain)
>                  * at the same time.
>                  */
>                 if (nvbo->zeta) {
> -                       fpfn = vram_pages / 2;
> +                       fpfn = (vram_size / 2) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>                         lpfn = ~0;
>                 } else {
>                         fpfn = 0;
> -                       lpfn = vram_pages / 2;
> +                       lpfn = (vram_size / 2) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>                 }
>                 for (i = 0; i < nvbo->placement.num_placement; ++i) {
>                         nvbo->placements[i].fpfn = fpfn;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fbcon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fbcon.c
> index 4fc0fa696461..93ac78bda750 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fbcon.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fbcon.c
> @@ -379,10 +379,10 @@ nouveau_fbcon_create(struct drm_fb_helper *helper,
>                               FBINFO_HWACCEL_IMAGEBLIT;
>         info->fbops = &nouveau_fbcon_sw_ops;
>         info->fix.smem_start = nvbo->bo.mem.bus.offset;
> -       info->fix.smem_len = nvbo->bo.mem.num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +       info->fix.smem_len = nvbo->bo.base.size;

Is byte level granularity a thing in general? I would have assumed
that base.size is always aligned to PAGE_SIZE or whatever? At least in
ttm_bo_init_reserved() we first align the size and then calculate the
num_pages, so not sure. Hopefully this is not a concern, and should be
equivalent.

Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>