[PATCH 3/5] drm/ttm: replace busy placement with flags v6

[Thomas Hellström]

On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 16:22 -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:16:58PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:38:16PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 1/17/24 13:27, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 1/17/24 11:47, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > > > Hi, Christian
> > > > > 
> > > > > Xe changes look good. Will send the series to xe ci to check
> > > > > for 
> > > > > regressions.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, there are some checkpatch warnings about author / SOB
> > > > email 
> > > > mismatch,
> > > 
> > > With those fixed, this patch is
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > 
> > it actually broke drm-tip now that this is merged:
> > 
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:10: error: ‘struct ttm_placement’
> > has no member named ‘num_busy_placement’; did you mean
> > ‘num_placement’
> >   41 |         .num_busy_placement = 1,
> >      |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >      |          num_placement
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:31: error: excess elements in
> > struct initializer [-Werror]
> >   41 |         .num_busy_placement = 1,
> >      |                               ^
> > 
> > 
> > Apparently a conflict with another patch that got applied a few
> > days
> > ago: a201c6ee37d6 ("drm/xe/bo: Evict VRAM to TT rather than to
> > system")
> 
> oh, no... apparently that commit is  from a long time ago. The
> problem
> was that drm-misc-next was not yet in sync with drm-next. Thomas, do
> you
> have a fixup for this to put in rerere?
> 
> Lucas De Marchi

I added this as a manual fixup and ran some quick igt tests.

Seems to work.