Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-27 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:22:18PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Imo get maybe another ttm+gem stakeholder to review this (Thomas for vram > > helpers or Ben for nouveau) and then this can land. I think Thomas > > Hellstrom tuned down his categorical "nak" to "we'll see where this goes

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-27 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > Imo get maybe another ttm+gem stakeholder to review this (Thomas for vram > helpers or Ben for nouveau) and then this can land. I think Thomas > Hellstrom tuned down his categorical "nak" to "we'll see where this goes, > I might need to jump in and help course-correct". Yep, seems he also

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-27 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 01:57:37PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > v2: > - build fixes. > - also drop ttm_buffer_object->resv > > Gerd Hoffmann (18): > drm/ttm: add gem base object > drm/vram: use embedded gem object > drm/qxl: use embedded gem object > drm/radeon: use embedded gem object

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-26 Thread Christian König
Am 24.06.19 um 08:32 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi, Yeah, my point was not really suggesting that we do this, but rather that people would rightfully get upset because the struct contains unused stuff. Well, struct drm_gem_object isn't that big, lets have a look: 320 bytes in total, of which a

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-24 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Thomas, On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 09:14:24PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 6/22/19 11:18 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:52 AM Thomas Hellstrom > > wrote: > > > On 6/21/19 5:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:12:19PM

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-23 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > Yeah, my point was not really suggesting that we do this, but rather that > people would rightfully get upset because the struct contains unused stuff. Well, struct drm_gem_object isn't that big, lets have a look: 320 bytes in total, of which are: 184 bytes the embedded vma_mode 64

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-22 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
Hi, Daniel, On 6/22/19 11:18 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: Hi Thomas, On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:52 AM Thomas Hellstrom wrote: On 6/21/19 5:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote: On 6/21/19 1:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Aargh. Plea

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-22 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Thomas, On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:52 AM Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 6/21/19 5:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote: > >> > >> On 6/21/19 1:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> > >> Aargh. Please don't do this. Multiple reasons:

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-21 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
Hi, Daniel, On 6/21/19 5:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote: On 6/21/19 1:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Aargh. Please don't do this. Multiple reasons: 1) I think It's bad to dump all buffer object functionality we can possibly

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 03:48:24PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > One little comment on patch #8: > > + /* base.vma_node */ > Is that really useful? I would just drop it. > > Apart from that Patches #1, #2, #4, #5, #7 - #12, #14, #15, #18 are > Reviewed-by: Christian König . > > Patches #3, #6

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote: > > > On 6/21/19 1:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Aargh. Please don't do this. Multiple reasons: > > 1) I think It's bad to dump all buffer object functionality we can possibly > think of in a single struct and force th

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-21 Thread VMware
On 6/21/19 1:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Aargh. Please don't do this. Multiple reasons: 1) I think It's bad to dump all buffer object functionality we can possibly think of in a single struct and force that on all (well at least most) users. It's better to isolate functionality in structs, h

Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-21 Thread Christian König
One little comment on patch #8: + /* base.vma_node */ Is that really useful? I would just drop it. Apart from that Patches #1, #2, #4, #5, #7 - #12, #14, #15, #18 are Reviewed-by: Christian König . Patches #3, #6, #13, #16, #17 are Acked-by: Christian König . You should try to get a

[PATCH v2 00/18] drm/ttm: make ttm bo a gem bo subclass

2019-06-21 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
v2: - build fixes. - also drop ttm_buffer_object->resv Gerd Hoffmann (18): drm/ttm: add gem base object drm/vram: use embedded gem object drm/qxl: use embedded gem object drm/radeon: use embedded gem object drm/amdgpu: use embedded gem object drm/nouveau: use embedded gem object dr