On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 04:16:23PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Mon Oct 12, 2026 at 4:11 PM CEST, Matthew Brost wrote: > > Danilo - correct me if I'm wrong but in prior rev one of your dislikes > > was some drivers using DRM_GPUVM_RESV_PROTECTED and others not (msm, > > Nouveau), thus I have both fixed in this series as it was quite easy + > > using two pass gpuvm. > > > > So Danilo didn't contribute, rather suggested. > > That's all correct, feel free to add a Suggested-by tag if you like. I will > get > back to this series soon, thanks for tackling this!
+1. This has suddenly become a priority for my company over the last week, so please let me know when I can start merging the pieces. My plan would be to merge the baseline GPUVM patch through drm-misc, wait for it to propagate to drm_next (at least for Xe), and then have the individual driver maintainers merge their respective pieces. > > > Also in a follow up we should probably rip out > > non-DRM_GPUVM_RESV_PROTECTED support as I believe all drivers will now > > use this. > > Yes, that'd be great, I already added this to my list. But feel free to send a > follow-up if you want. :) No problem picking that up but let's get this series in first and once everyone is in drm-tip do an audit and rip non-DRM_GPUVM_RESV_PROTECTED out. Matt > > Thanks, > Danilo
