Nouveau - Jan 2024 - [PATCH 3/5] drm/ttm: replace busy placement with flags v6

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:16:58PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:38:16PM +0100, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
>>
>>On 1/17/24 13:27, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
>>>
>>>On 1/17/24 11:47, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
>>>>Hi, Christian
>>>>
>>>>Xe changes look good. Will send the series to xe ci to check for
>>>>regressions.
>>>
>>>Hmm, there are some checkpatch warnings about author / SOB email 
>>>mismatch,
>>
>>With those fixed, this patch is
>>
>>Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstr?m <thomas.hellstrom at
linux.intel.com>
>
>
>it actually broke drm-tip now that this is merged:
>
>../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:10: error: ?struct ttm_placement? has no
member named ?num_busy_placement?; did you mean ?num_placement?
>   41 |         .num_busy_placement = 1,
>      |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>      |          num_placement
>../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:31: error: excess elements in struct
initializer [-Werror]
>   41 |         .num_busy_placement = 1,
>      |                               ^
>
>
>Apparently a conflict with another patch that got applied a few days
>ago: a201c6ee37d6 ("drm/xe/bo: Evict VRAM to TT rather than to
system")
oh, no... apparently that commit is  from a long time ago. The problem
was that drm-misc-next was not yet in sync with drm-next. Thomas, do you
have a fixup for this to put in rerere?

Lucas De Marchi

Hi Lucas,

I encountered this build issue as well. I submitted a fix for drm-tip.

Oak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On
Behalf Of Lucas
> De Marchi
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 5:23 PM
> To: Thomas Hellstr?m <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: kherbst at redhat.com; michel.daenzer at mailbox.org;
> nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; dri-
> devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Christian K?nig
> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>; zackr at vmware.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/ttm: replace busy placement with flags
v6
> 
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:16:58PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:38:16PM +0100, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
> >>
> >>On 1/17/24 13:27, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On 1/17/24 11:47, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
> >>>>Hi, Christian
> >>>>
> >>>>Xe changes look good. Will send the series to xe ci to
check for
> >>>>regressions.
> >>>
> >>>Hmm, there are some checkpatch warnings about author / SOB
email
> >>>mismatch,
> >>
> >>With those fixed, this patch is
> >>
> >>Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstr?m <thomas.hellstrom at
linux.intel.com>
> >
> >
> >it actually broke drm-tip now that this is merged:
> >
> >../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:10: error: ?struct ttm_placement? has
no
> member named ?num_busy_placement?; did you mean ?num_placement?
> >   41 |         .num_busy_placement = 1,
> >      |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >      |          num_placement
> >../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:31: error: excess elements in struct
initializer
> [-Werror]
> >   41 |         .num_busy_placement = 1,
> >      |                               ^
> >
> >
> >Apparently a conflict with another patch that got applied a few days
> >ago: a201c6ee37d6 ("drm/xe/bo: Evict VRAM to TT rather than to
system")
> 
> oh, no... apparently that commit is  from a long time ago. The problem
> was that drm-misc-next was not yet in sync with drm-next. Thomas, do you
> have a fixup for this to put in rerere?
> 
> Lucas De Marchi

On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 16:22 -0600, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:16:58PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:38:16PM +0100, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 1/17/24 13:27, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 1/17/24 11:47, Thomas Hellstr?m wrote:
> > > > > Hi, Christian
> > > > > 
> > > > > Xe changes look good. Will send the series to xe ci to
check
> > > > > for 
> > > > > regressions.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, there are some checkpatch warnings about author / SOB
> > > > email 
> > > > mismatch,
> > > 
> > > With those fixed, this patch is
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstr?m <thomas.hellstrom at
linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > 
> > it actually broke drm-tip now that this is merged:
> > 
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:10: error: ?struct ttm_placement?
> > has no member named ?num_busy_placement?; did you mean
> > ?num_placement?
> > ? 41 |???????? .num_busy_placement = 1,
> > ???? |????????? ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ???? |????????? num_placement
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:31: error: excess elements in
> > struct initializer [-Werror]
> > ? 41 |???????? .num_busy_placement = 1,
> > ???? |?????????????????????????????? ^
> > 
> > 
> > Apparently a conflict with another patch that got applied a few
> > days
> > ago: a201c6ee37d6 ("drm/xe/bo: Evict VRAM to TT rather than to
> > system")
> 
> oh, no... apparently that commit is? from a long time ago. The
> problem
> was that drm-misc-next was not yet in sync with drm-next. Thomas, do
> you
> have a fixup for this to put in rerere?
> 
> Lucas De Marchi
I added this as a manual fixup and ran some quick igt tests.

Seems to work.