[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/overlay: Fix active retire callback alignment

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 29/04/2021 17:31, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 09:35:29AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> __i915_active_call annotation is required on the retire callback to ensure
>> correct function alignment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Fixes: a21ce8ad12d2 ("drm/i915/overlay: Switch to using i915_active tracking")
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c
>> index fffbde4256db..428819ba18dd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c
>> @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ static void intel_overlay_off_tail(struct intel_overlay *overlay)
>>   		i830_overlay_clock_gating(dev_priv, true);
>>   }
>>   
>> -static void
>> +__i915_active_call static void
> 
> Am I blind or are we just packing flag bits into a pointer, passing
> that to a function, and then immediately unpack the bits again in
> said function? Why not just pass the flags explicitly?
> 
> Looks like you missed auto_retire()?

Yeah, both points already either fixed or under consideration: 
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/431473/?series=89623&rev=1

I left the splitting up vfunc vs flags for later.

Regards,

Tvrtko

>>   intel_overlay_last_flip_retire(struct i915_active *active)
>>   {
>>   	struct intel_overlay *overlay =
>> -- 
>> 2.30.2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>