[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Rename unpin_count to pin_count

[Daniel, Thomas]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf
> Of Mika Kuoppala
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:32 AM
> To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Rename unpin_count to pin_count
> 
> We increase it when we pin, so for the casual reader rename it to cause less
> confusion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  |  2 +-  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c |
> 12 ++++++------
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index e008fa0..b9bec97 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ struct intel_context {
>  	struct {
>  		struct drm_i915_gem_object *state;
>  		struct intel_ringbuffer *ringbuf;
> -		int unpin_count;
> +		int pin_count;
>  	} engine[I915_NUM_RINGS];
> 
>  	struct list_head link;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> index 56a3625..fbe59c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> @@ -839,11 +839,11 @@ static int intel_lr_context_pin(struct
> intel_engine_cs *ring,
>  	int ret = 0;
> 
>  	WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&ring->dev->struct_mutex));
> -	if (ctx->engine[ring->id].unpin_count++ == 0) {
> +	if (ctx->engine[ring->id].pin_count++ == 0) {
>  		ret = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(ctx_obj,
>  				GEN8_LR_CONTEXT_ALIGN, 0);
>  		if (ret)
> -			goto reset_unpin_count;
> +			goto reset_pin_count;
> 
>  		ret = intel_pin_and_map_ringbuffer_obj(ring->dev, ringbuf);
>  		if (ret)
> @@ -854,8 +854,8 @@ static int intel_lr_context_pin(struct intel_engine_cs
> *ring,
> 
>  unpin_ctx_obj:
>  	i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(ctx_obj);
> -reset_unpin_count:
> -	ctx->engine[ring->id].unpin_count = 0;
> +reset_pin_count:
> +	ctx->engine[ring->id].pin_count = 0;
> 
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ void intel_lr_context_unpin(struct intel_engine_cs
> *ring,
> 
>  	if (ctx_obj) {
>  		WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&ring->dev->struct_mutex));
> -		if (--ctx->engine[ring->id].unpin_count == 0) {
> +		if (--ctx->engine[ring->id].pin_count == 0) {
>  			intel_unpin_ringbuffer_obj(ringbuf);
>  			i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(ctx_obj);
>  		}
> @@ -1774,7 +1774,7 @@ void intel_lr_context_free(struct intel_context
> *ctx)
>  				intel_unpin_ringbuffer_obj(ringbuf);
>  				i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(ctx_obj);
>  			}
> -			WARN_ON(ctx->engine[ring->id].unpin_count);
> +			WARN_ON(ctx->engine[ring->id].pin_count);
>  			intel_destroy_ringbuffer_obj(ringbuf);
>  			kfree(ringbuf);
>  			drm_gem_object_unreference(&ctx_obj->base);

Reviewed-by: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel at intel.com>
Although this counter should go away once I get a chance to finish the reworking of the dynamic pinning.

Thomas.