Nouveau - Feb 2020 - [PATCH 8/8] drm/ttm: do not keep GPU dependent addresses

Am 18.02.20 um 19:16 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
> Hi
>
> Am 18.02.20 um 18:13 schrieb Nirmoy:
>> On 2/18/20 1:44 PM, Christian K?nig wrote:
>>> Am 18.02.20 um 13:40 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.02.20 um 16:04 schrieb Nirmoy Das:
>>>>> GPU address handling is device specific and should be
handle by its
>>>>> device
>>>>> driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at amd.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  ? drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c??? | 7 -------
>>>>>  ? include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h??? | 2 --
>>>>>  ? include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h | 1 -
>>>>>  ? 3 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>> index 151edfd8de77..d5885cd609a3 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ static void ttm_mem_type_debug(struct
>>>>> ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct drm_printer *p
>>>>>  ????? drm_printf(p, "??? has_type: %d\n",
man->has_type);
>>>>>  ????? drm_printf(p, "??? use_type: %d\n",
man->use_type);
>>>>>  ????? drm_printf(p, "??? flags: 0x%08X\n",
man->flags);
>>>>> -??? drm_printf(p, "??? gpu_offset: 0x%08llX\n",
man->gpu_offset);
>>>>>  ????? drm_printf(p, "??? size: %llu\n",
man->size);
>>>>>  ????? drm_printf(p, "??? available_caching:
0x%08X\n",
>>>>> man->available_caching);
>>>>>  ????? drm_printf(p, "??? default_caching:
0x%08X\n",
>>>>> man->default_caching);
>>>>> @@ -345,12 +344,6 @@ static int
ttm_bo_handle_move_mem(struct
>>>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>>>>  ? moved:
>>>>>  ????? bo->evicted = false;
>>>>>  ? -??? if (bo->mem.mm_node)
>>>>> -??????? bo->offset = (bo->mem.start <<
PAGE_SHIFT) +
>>>>> -??????????? bdev->man[bo->mem.mem_type].gpu_offset;
>>>>> -??? else
>>>>> -??????? bo->offset = 0;
>>>>> -
>>>> After moving this into users, the else branch has been lost. Is
>>>> 'bo->mem.mm_node' always true?
>>> At least for the amdgpu and radeon use cases, yes.
>>>
>>> But that is a rather good question I mean for it is illegal to get
the
>>> GPU BO address if it is inaccessible (e.g. in the system domain).
>>>
>>> Could be that some driver relied on the behavior to get 0 for the
>>> system domain here.
>> I wonder how to verify that ?
>>
>> If I understand correctly:
>>
>> 1 qxl uses bo->offset only in qxl_bo_physical_address() which is not
in
>> system domain.
>>
>> 2 unfortunately I can't say the same for bochs but it works with
this
>> patch series so I think bochs is fine as well.
>>
>> 3 vmwgfx uses bo->offset only when bo->mem.mem_type ==
TTM_PL_VRAM so
>> vmwgfx should be fine.
>>
>> 4 amdgpu and radeon runs with 'bo->mem.mm_node' always true
>>
>> I am not sure about? nouveau as bo->offset is being used in many
places.
>>
>> I could probably mirror the removed logic to nouveau as
> I suggest to introduce a ttm helper that contains the original branching
> and use it everywhere. Something like
>
>    s64 ttm_bo_offset(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo)
>    {
>       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bo->mem.mm_node))
>           return 0;
>       return bo->mem.start << PAGE_SHIFT;
>    }
>
> Could be static inline. The warning should point to broken drivers. This
> also gets rid of the ugly shift in the drivers.
Big NAK on this. That is exactly what we should NOT do.

See the shift belongs into the driver, because it is driver dependent if 
we work with page or byte offsets.

For amdgpu we for example want to work with byte offsets and TTM should 
not make any assumption about what bo->mem.start actually contains.

Regards,
Christian.
>
> Best regards
> Thomas
>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>> index f8015e0318d7..5a6a2af91318 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>> @@ -1317,6 +1317,10 @@ nouveau_bo_move_ntfy(struct ttm_buffer_object
>> *bo, bool evict,
>>  ??????????????? list_for_each_entry(vma, &nvbo->vma_list, head)
{
>>  ??????????????????????? nouveau_vma_map(vma, mem);
>>  ??????????????? }
>> +?????????????? if (bo->mem.mm_node)
>> +?????????????????????? nvbo->offset = (new_reg->start <<
PAGE_SHIFT);
>> +?????????????? else
>> +?????????????????????? nvbo->offset = 0;
>>  ??????? } else {
>>  ??????????????? list_for_each_entry(vma, &nvbo->vma_list, head)
{
>>  ??????????????????????? WARN_ON(ttm_bo_wait(bo, false, false));
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nirmoy
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>>  ????? ctx->bytes_moved += bo->num_pages <<
PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>  ????? return 0;
>>>>>  ? diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>> index b9bc1b00142e..d6f39ee5bf5d 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>> @@ -213,8 +213,6 @@ struct ttm_buffer_object {
>>>>>  ?????? * either of these locks held.
>>>>>  ?????? */
>>>>>  ? -??? uint64_t offset; /* GPU address space is
independent of CPU
>>>>> word size */
>>>>> -
>>>>>  ????? struct sg_table *sg;
>>>>>  ? };
>>>>>  ? diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>> index c9e0fd09f4b2..c8ce6c181abe 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>> @@ -177,7 +177,6 @@ struct ttm_mem_type_manager {
>>>>>  ????? bool has_type;
>>>>>  ????? bool use_type;
>>>>>  ????? uint32_t flags;
>>>>> -??? uint64_t gpu_offset; /* GPU address space is
independent of CPU
>>>>> word size */
>>>>>  ????? uint64_t size;
>>>>>  ????? uint32_t available_caching;
>>>>>  ????? uint32_t default_caching;
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Hi

Am 18.02.20 um 19:23 schrieb Christian K?nig:
> Am 18.02.20 um 19:16 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 18.02.20 um 18:13 schrieb Nirmoy:
>>> On 2/18/20 1:44 PM, Christian K?nig wrote:
>>>> Am 18.02.20 um 13:40 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.02.20 um 16:04 schrieb Nirmoy Das:
>>>>>> GPU address handling is device specific and should be
handle by its
>>>>>> device
>>>>>> driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at amd.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> ?? drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c??? | 7 -------
>>>>>> ?? include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h??? | 2 --
>>>>>> ?? include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h | 1 -
>>>>>> ?? 3 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> index 151edfd8de77..d5885cd609a3 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ static void ttm_mem_type_debug(struct
>>>>>> ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct drm_printer *p
>>>>>> ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? has_type: %d\n",
man->has_type);
>>>>>> ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? use_type: %d\n",
man->use_type);
>>>>>> ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? flags: 0x%08X\n",
man->flags);
>>>>>> -??? drm_printf(p, "??? gpu_offset:
0x%08llX\n", man->gpu_offset);
>>>>>> ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? size: %llu\n",
man->size);
>>>>>> ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? available_caching:
0x%08X\n",
>>>>>> man->available_caching);
>>>>>> ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? default_caching:
0x%08X\n",
>>>>>> man->default_caching);
>>>>>> @@ -345,12 +344,6 @@ static int
ttm_bo_handle_move_mem(struct
>>>>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>>>>> ?? moved:
>>>>>> ?????? bo->evicted = false;
>>>>>> ?? -??? if (bo->mem.mm_node)
>>>>>> -??????? bo->offset = (bo->mem.start <<
PAGE_SHIFT) +
>>>>>> -???????????
bdev->man[bo->mem.mem_type].gpu_offset;
>>>>>> -??? else
>>>>>> -??????? bo->offset = 0;
>>>>>> -
>>>>> After moving this into users, the else branch has been
lost. Is
>>>>> 'bo->mem.mm_node' always true?
>>>> At least for the amdgpu and radeon use cases, yes.
>>>>
>>>> But that is a rather good question I mean for it is illegal to
get the
>>>> GPU BO address if it is inaccessible (e.g. in the system
domain).
>>>>
>>>> Could be that some driver relied on the behavior to get 0 for
the
>>>> system domain here.
>>> I wonder how to verify that ?
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly:
>>>
>>> 1 qxl uses bo->offset only in qxl_bo_physical_address() which is
not in
>>> system domain.
>>>
>>> 2 unfortunately I can't say the same for bochs but it works
with this
>>> patch series so I think bochs is fine as well.
>>>
>>> 3 vmwgfx uses bo->offset only when bo->mem.mem_type ==
TTM_PL_VRAM so
>>> vmwgfx should be fine.
>>>
>>> 4 amdgpu and radeon runs with 'bo->mem.mm_node' always
true
>>>
>>> I am not sure about? nouveau as bo->offset is being used in many
places.
>>>
>>> I could probably mirror the removed logic to nouveau as
>> I suggest to introduce a ttm helper that contains the original
branching
>> and use it everywhere. Something like
>>
>> ?? s64 ttm_bo_offset(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo)
>> ?? {
>> ????? if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bo->mem.mm_node))
>> ????????? return 0;
>> ????? return bo->mem.start << PAGE_SHIFT;
>> ?? }
>>
>> Could be static inline. The warning should point to broken drivers.
This
>> also gets rid of the ugly shift in the drivers.
> 
> Big NAK on this. That is exactly what we should NOT do.
> 
> See the shift belongs into the driver, because it is driver dependent if
> we work with page or byte offsets.
> 
> For amdgpu we for example want to work with byte offsets and TTM should
> not make any assumption about what bo->mem.start actually contains.
OK. What about something like ttm_bo_pg_offset()? Same code without the
shift. Would also make it clear that it's a page offset.

Best regards
Thomas
> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
>>
>> Best regards
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>> index f8015e0318d7..5a6a2af91318 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>> @@ -1317,6 +1317,10 @@ nouveau_bo_move_ntfy(struct
ttm_buffer_object
>>> *bo, bool evict,
>>> ???????????????? list_for_each_entry(vma, &nvbo->vma_list,
head) {
>>> ???????????????????????? nouveau_vma_map(vma, mem);
>>> ???????????????? }
>>> +?????????????? if (bo->mem.mm_node)
>>> +?????????????????????? nvbo->offset = (new_reg->start
<< PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> +?????????????? else
>>> +?????????????????????? nvbo->offset = 0;
>>> ???????? } else {
>>> ???????????????? list_for_each_entry(vma, &nvbo->vma_list,
head) {
>>> ???????????????????????? WARN_ON(ttm_bo_wait(bo, false, false));
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Nirmoy
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>> ?????? ctx->bytes_moved += bo->num_pages <<
PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>> ?????? return 0;
>>>>>> ?? diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>> index b9bc1b00142e..d6f39ee5bf5d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>> @@ -213,8 +213,6 @@ struct ttm_buffer_object {
>>>>>> ??????? * either of these locks held.
>>>>>> ??????? */
>>>>>> ?? -??? uint64_t offset; /* GPU address space is
independent of CPU
>>>>>> word size */
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> ?????? struct sg_table *sg;
>>>>>> ?? };
>>>>>> ?? diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>> index c9e0fd09f4b2..c8ce6c181abe 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>> @@ -177,7 +177,6 @@ struct ttm_mem_type_manager {
>>>>>> ?????? bool has_type;
>>>>>> ?????? bool use_type;
>>>>>> ?????? uint32_t flags;
>>>>>> -??? uint64_t gpu_offset; /* GPU address space is
independent of CPU
>>>>>> word size */
>>>>>> ?????? uint64_t size;
>>>>>> ?????? uint32_t available_caching;
>>>>>> ?????? uint32_t default_caching;
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG N?rnberg)
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Felix Imend?rffer

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/attachments/20200218/885ef254/attachment.sig>

Am 18.02.20 um 19:28 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
> Hi
>
> Am 18.02.20 um 19:23 schrieb Christian K?nig:
>> Am 18.02.20 um 19:16 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Am 18.02.20 um 18:13 schrieb Nirmoy:
>>>> On 2/18/20 1:44 PM, Christian K?nig wrote:
>>>>> Am 18.02.20 um 13:40 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.02.20 um 16:04 schrieb Nirmoy Das:
>>>>>>> GPU address handling is device specific and should
be handle by its
>>>>>>> device
>>>>>>> driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at
amd.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  ?? drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c??? | 7 -------
>>>>>>>  ?? include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h??? | 2 --
>>>>>>>  ?? include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h | 1 -
>>>>>>>  ?? 3 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> index 151edfd8de77..d5885cd609a3 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ static void
ttm_mem_type_debug(struct
>>>>>>> ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct drm_printer *p
>>>>>>>  ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? has_type:
%d\n", man->has_type);
>>>>>>>  ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? use_type:
%d\n", man->use_type);
>>>>>>>  ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? flags:
0x%08X\n", man->flags);
>>>>>>> -??? drm_printf(p, "??? gpu_offset:
0x%08llX\n", man->gpu_offset);
>>>>>>>  ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? size: %llu\n",
man->size);
>>>>>>>  ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? available_caching:
0x%08X\n",
>>>>>>> man->available_caching);
>>>>>>>  ?????? drm_printf(p, "??? default_caching:
0x%08X\n",
>>>>>>> man->default_caching);
>>>>>>> @@ -345,12 +344,6 @@ static int
ttm_bo_handle_move_mem(struct
>>>>>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>>>>>>  ?? moved:
>>>>>>>  ?????? bo->evicted = false;
>>>>>>>  ?? -??? if (bo->mem.mm_node)
>>>>>>> -??????? bo->offset = (bo->mem.start <<
PAGE_SHIFT) +
>>>>>>> -???????????
bdev->man[bo->mem.mem_type].gpu_offset;
>>>>>>> -??? else
>>>>>>> -??????? bo->offset = 0;
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>> After moving this into users, the else branch has been
lost. Is
>>>>>> 'bo->mem.mm_node' always true?
>>>>> At least for the amdgpu and radeon use cases, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is a rather good question I mean for it is illegal
to get the
>>>>> GPU BO address if it is inaccessible (e.g. in the system
domain).
>>>>>
>>>>> Could be that some driver relied on the behavior to get 0
for the
>>>>> system domain here.
>>>> I wonder how to verify that ?
>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly:
>>>>
>>>> 1 qxl uses bo->offset only in qxl_bo_physical_address()
which is not in
>>>> system domain.
>>>>
>>>> 2 unfortunately I can't say the same for bochs but it works
with this
>>>> patch series so I think bochs is fine as well.
>>>>
>>>> 3 vmwgfx uses bo->offset only when bo->mem.mem_type ==
TTM_PL_VRAM so
>>>> vmwgfx should be fine.
>>>>
>>>> 4 amdgpu and radeon runs with 'bo->mem.mm_node'
always true
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure about? nouveau as bo->offset is being used in
many places.
>>>>
>>>> I could probably mirror the removed logic to nouveau as
>>> I suggest to introduce a ttm helper that contains the original
branching
>>> and use it everywhere. Something like
>>>
>>>  ?? s64 ttm_bo_offset(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo)
>>>  ?? {
>>>  ????? if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bo->mem.mm_node))
>>>  ????????? return 0;
>>>  ????? return bo->mem.start << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>  ?? }
>>>
>>> Could be static inline. The warning should point to broken drivers.
This
>>> also gets rid of the ugly shift in the drivers.
>> Big NAK on this. That is exactly what we should NOT do.
>>
>> See the shift belongs into the driver, because it is driver dependent
if
>> we work with page or byte offsets.
>>
>> For amdgpu we for example want to work with byte offsets and TTM should
>> not make any assumption about what bo->mem.start actually contains.
> OK. What about something like ttm_bo_pg_offset()? Same code without the
> shift. Would also make it clear that it's a page offset.
That is a rather good idea. We could name that ttm_bo_man_offset() and 
put it into ttm_bo_manager.c next to the manager which allocates them.

It's just that this manager is not used by everybody, so amdgpu, radeon 
and nouveau would still need a separate function.

Christian.
>
> Best regards
> Thomas
>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>>> index f8015e0318d7..5a6a2af91318 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
>>>> @@ -1317,6 +1317,10 @@ nouveau_bo_move_ntfy(struct
ttm_buffer_object
>>>> *bo, bool evict,
>>>>  ???????????????? list_for_each_entry(vma,
&nvbo->vma_list, head) {
>>>>  ???????????????????????? nouveau_vma_map(vma, mem);
>>>>  ???????????????? }
>>>> +?????????????? if (bo->mem.mm_node)
>>>> +?????????????????????? nvbo->offset = (new_reg->start
<< PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>> +?????????????? else
>>>> +?????????????????????? nvbo->offset = 0;
>>>>  ???????? } else {
>>>>  ???????????????? list_for_each_entry(vma,
&nvbo->vma_list, head) {
>>>>  ???????????????????????? WARN_ON(ttm_bo_wait(bo, false,
false));
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Nirmoy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  ?????? ctx->bytes_moved += bo->num_pages
<< PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>>>  ?????? return 0;
>>>>>>>  ?? diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>>> index b9bc1b00142e..d6f39ee5bf5d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>>>>>> @@ -213,8 +213,6 @@ struct ttm_buffer_object {
>>>>>>>  ??????? * either of these locks held.
>>>>>>>  ??????? */
>>>>>>>  ?? -??? uint64_t offset; /* GPU address space is
independent of CPU
>>>>>>> word size */
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>  ?????? struct sg_table *sg;
>>>>>>>  ?? };
>>>>>>>  ?? diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>>> index c9e0fd09f4b2..c8ce6c181abe 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>>>>>> @@ -177,7 +177,6 @@ struct ttm_mem_type_manager {
>>>>>>>  ?????? bool has_type;
>>>>>>>  ?????? bool use_type;
>>>>>>>  ?????? uint32_t flags;
>>>>>>> -??? uint64_t gpu_offset; /* GPU address space is
independent of CPU
>>>>>>> word size */
>>>>>>>  ?????? uint64_t size;
>>>>>>>  ?????? uint32_t available_caching;
>>>>>>>  ?????? uint32_t default_caching;
>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/attachments/20200218/14952a69/attachment-0001.htm>