[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 14/63] drm/i915: Reject UNSYNCHRONIZED for userptr, v2.

[Maarten Lankhorst]

We should not allow this any more, as it will break with the new userptr
implementation, it could still be made to work, but there's no point in
doing so.

Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c | 10 ++--------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
index 64a946d5f753..241f865077b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 	struct i915_mmu_object *mo;
 
 	if (flags & I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED)
-		return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? 0 : -EPERM;
+		return -ENODEV;
 
 	if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj->userptr.mm))
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -274,13 +274,7 @@ static int
 i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 				    unsigned flags)
 {
-	if ((flags & I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED) == 0)
-		return -ENODEV;
-
-	if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
-		return -EPERM;
-
-	return 0;
+	return -ENODEV;
 }
 
 static void
-- 
2.29.2.222.g5d2a92d10f8