Re: [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-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of
Christian König
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 5:55 AM
To: intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: matthew.william.a...@gmail.com; Christian König
<christian.koe...@amd.com>; dri-devel@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.koe...@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