[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Implement local atomic_state_free callback

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 05/12/2016 14:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> As we use debugobjects to track the lifetime of fences within our atomic
> state, we ideally want to mark those objects as freed along with their
> containers. This merits us hookin into config->funcs->atomic_state_free
> for this purpose.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 1624db0856d9..19502c4018ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -14607,12 +14607,6 @@ intel_atomic_commit_ready(struct i915_sw_fence *fence,
>  		break;
>
>  	case FENCE_FREE:
> -		/* Ideally we would hook into the state->destroy callback to
> -		 * mark the fence object free at the right time. Since we
> -		 * don't currently have that callback, mark it as free
> -		 * right away.
> -		 */
> -		i915_sw_fence_fini(fence);
>  		drm_atomic_state_put(&state->base);
>  		break;
>  	}
> @@ -16009,6 +16003,17 @@ intel_user_framebuffer_create(struct drm_device *dev,
>  	return fb;
>  }
>
> +static void intel_atomic_state_free(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct intel_atomic_state *intel_state = to_intel_atomic_state(state);
> +
> +	drm_atomic_state_default_release(state);
> +
> +	i915_sw_fence_fini(&intel_state->commit_ready);
> +
> +	kfree(state);
> +}
> +
>  static const struct drm_mode_config_funcs intel_mode_funcs = {
>  	.fb_create = intel_user_framebuffer_create,
>  	.output_poll_changed = intel_fbdev_output_poll_changed,
> @@ -16016,6 +16021,7 @@ static const struct drm_mode_config_funcs intel_mode_funcs = {
>  	.atomic_commit = intel_atomic_commit,
>  	.atomic_state_alloc = intel_atomic_state_alloc,
>  	.atomic_state_clear = intel_atomic_state_clear,
> +	.atomic_state_free = intel_atomic_state_free,
>  };
>
>  /**
>

Looks correct to me. I would just prefer we go with this straight away 
and drop the preceding hack.

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko