[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/11] drm/nouveau: switch over to ttm_bo_init_reserved

[Ruhl, Michael J]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of
>Christian König
>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 5:55 AM
>To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>Cc: matthew.william.auld at gmail.com; Christian König
><christian.koenig at amd.com>; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: [PATCH 02/11] drm/nouveau: switch over to ttm_bo_init_reserved
>
>Use the new interface instead.
>
>Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>index 05076e530e7d..858b9382036c 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>@@ -302,19 +302,23 @@ nouveau_bo_init(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo, u64
>size, int align, u32 domain,
> 		struct sg_table *sg, struct dma_resv *robj)
> {
> 	int type = sg ? ttm_bo_type_sg : ttm_bo_type_device;
>+	struct ttm_operation_ctx ctx = { false, false };
> 	int ret;
>
> 	nouveau_bo_placement_set(nvbo, domain, 0);
> 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&nvbo->io_reserve_lru);
>
>-	ret = ttm_bo_init(nvbo->bo.bdev, &nvbo->bo, size, type,
>-			  &nvbo->placement, align >> PAGE_SHIFT, false, sg,
>-			  robj, nouveau_bo_del_ttm);
>+	ret = ttm_bo_init_reserved(nvbo->bo.bdev, &nvbo->bo, size, type,
>+				   &nvbo->placement, align >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>&ctx,
>+				   sg, robj, nouveau_bo_del_ttm);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		/* ttm will call nouveau_bo_del_ttm if it fails.. */
> 		return ret;
> 	}
>
>+	if (!robj)
>+		ttm_bo_unreserve(&nvbo->bo);
>+

Ok, this implies that patch 1 does have an issue.

I see this usage in patch 1, 2, and 3.  Would it make sense to move this
_unreserve to ttm_bo_init_reserved?

Mike

> 	return 0;
> }
>
>--
>2.25.1