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

[Christian König]

Am 19.05.22 um 15:19 schrieb 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?

Well the whole point of ttm_bo_init_reserved is that you need to do the 
un-reserve manually.

But yeah, you are right. It would just make much more sense to rename 
ttm_bo_init() instead of adjusting all of it's users.

Thanks,
Christian.

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