[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/vc4: Use dma_resv locking wrappers

[Eric Anholt]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:10 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > I'll add more fancy logic to them soon, so everyone really has to use
> > them. Plus they already provide some nice additional debug
> > infrastructure on top of direct ww_mutex usage for the fences tracked
> > by dma_resv.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
>
> Ping for some review/acks.
>
> Thanks, Daniel
>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c | 11 +++++------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
> > index 7a06cb6e31c5..e1cfc3ccd05a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
> > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ vc4_unlock_bo_reservations(struct drm_device *dev,
> >       for (i = 0; i < exec->bo_count; i++) {
> >               struct drm_gem_object *bo = &exec->bo[i]->base;
> >
> > -             ww_mutex_unlock(&bo->resv->lock);
> > +             dma_resv_unlock(bo->resv);
> >       }
> >
> >       ww_acquire_fini(acquire_ctx);
> > @@ -595,8 +595,7 @@ vc4_lock_bo_reservations(struct drm_device *dev,
> >  retry:
> >       if (contended_lock != -1) {
> >               bo = &exec->bo[contended_lock]->base;
> > -             ret = ww_mutex_lock_slow_interruptible(&bo->resv->lock,
> > -                                                    acquire_ctx);
> > +             ret = dma_resv_lock_slow_interruptible(bo->resv, acquire_ctx);
> >               if (ret) {
> >                       ww_acquire_done(acquire_ctx);
> >                       return ret;
> > @@ -609,19 +608,19 @@ vc4_lock_bo_reservations(struct drm_device *dev,
> >
> >               bo = &exec->bo[i]->base;
> >
> > -             ret = ww_mutex_lock_interruptible(&bo->resv->lock, acquire_ctx);
> > +             ret = dma_resv_lock_interruptible(bo->resv, acquire_ctx);
> >               if (ret) {
> >                       int j;
> >
> >                       for (j = 0; j < i; j++) {
> >                               bo = &exec->bo[j]->base;
> > -                             ww_mutex_unlock(&bo->resv->lock);
> > +                             dma_resv_unlock(bo->resv);
> >                       }
> >
> >                       if (contended_lock != -1 && contended_lock >= i) {
> >                               bo = &exec->bo[contended_lock]->base;
> >
> > -                             ww_mutex_unlock(&bo->resv->lock);
> > +                             dma_resv_unlock(bo->resv);
> >                       }
> >
> >                       if (ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > --
> > 2.24.0
> >

Assuming they're supposed to be exactly equivalent currently,

Acked-by: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>

but we should really just be using drm_gem_lock_reservations()