search for: tag_ram

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou at gmail.com> wrote: > @@ -150,7 +151,10 @@ gf100_ltc_init_tag_ram(struct nvkm_fb *pfb, struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv) > int ret; > > /* tags for 1/4 of VRAM should be enough (8192/4 per GiB of VRAM) */ > - priv->num_tags = (pfb->ram->size >> 17) / 4; > + if (pfb->ram) > + priv->num_tags...

...1 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c b/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c > index 8e7cc62..ceaa104 100644 > --- a/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c > +++ b/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c > @@ -170,8 +174,10 @@ gf100_ltc_init_tag_ram(struct nvkm_fb *pfb, struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv) > tag_size += tag_align; > tag_size = (tag_size + 0xfff) >> 12; /* round up */ > > - ret = nvkm_mm_tail(&pfb->vram, 1, 1, tag_size, tag_size, 1, > - &priv->tag_ram); &...

...drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c @@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ struct nvc0_ltcg_priv { struct nouveau_ltcg base; u32 part_nr; u32 subp_nr; - struct nouveau_mm tags; u32 num_tags; + u32 tag_base; + struct nouveau_mm tags; struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram; }; @@ -117,10 +118,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align; int ret; - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr); - if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0) - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr); -...

...c62..ceaa104 100644 --- a/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c +++ b/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c @@ -136,7 +136,8 @@ gf100_ltc_dtor(struct nvkm_object *object) struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv = (void *)object; nvkm_mm_fini(&priv->tags); - nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); + if (pfb->ram) + nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); nvkm_ltc_destroy(priv); } @@ -150,7 +151,10 @@ gf100_ltc_init_tag_ram(struct nvkm_fb *pfb, struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv) int ret; /* tags for 1/4 of VRAM should be enough (8192/4 per GiB of VRAM) */ - priv->...

...c62..7ae8e91 100644 --- a/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c +++ b/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c @@ -136,7 +136,8 @@ gf100_ltc_dtor(struct nvkm_object *object) struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv = (void *)object; nvkm_mm_fini(&priv->tags); - nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); + if (pfb->ram) + nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); nvkm_ltc_destroy(priv); } @@ -150,7 +151,10 @@ gf100_ltc_init_tag_ram(struct nvkm_fb *pfb, struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv) int ret; /* tags for 1/4 of VRAM should be enough (8192/4 per GiB of VRAM) */ - priv->...

...drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c @@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ struct nvc0_ltcg_priv { struct nouveau_ltcg base; u32 part_nr; u32 subp_nr; - struct nouveau_mm tags; u32 num_tags; + u32 tag_base; + struct nouveau_mm tags; struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram; }; @@ -117,10 +118,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align; int ret; - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr); - if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0) - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr); -...

...7fb5ea0314cb 100644 --- a/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c +++ b/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c @@ -136,7 +136,8 @@ gf100_ltc_dtor(struct nvkm_object *object) struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv = (void *)object; nvkm_mm_fini(&priv->tags); - nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); + if (pfb->ram) + nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); nvkm_ltc_destroy(priv); } @@ -149,6 +150,12 @@ gf100_ltc_init_tag_ram(struct nvkm_fb *pfb, struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv) u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align; int ret; + /* No VRAM, no tags for now. */ + if (!pf...

.../nvc0.c @@ -23,10 +23,17 @@ */ #include <subdev/ltcg.h> +#include <subdev/fb.h> +#include <subdev/timer.h> struct nvc0_ltcg_priv { struct nouveau_ltcg base; + u32 part_nr; + u32 part_mask; u32 subp_nr; + struct nouveau_mm tags; + u32 num_tags; + struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram; }; static void @@ -62,11 +69,104 @@ nvc0_ltcg_intr(struct nouveau_subdev *subdev) } static int +nvc0_ltcg_tags_alloc(struct nouveau_ltcg *ltcg, u32 n, + struct nouveau_mm_node **pnode) +{ + struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv = (struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *)ltcg; + int ret; + + ret = nouveau_mm_h...

This one-liner should fix build of the nouveau kernel module on 32-bit systems, as reported broken by "Rexilion" on IRC. As I don't have a 32-bit machine, I would like to ask for someone to test. Thanks! Roy

...1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c index a529563..e4940fb 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) u64 tag_base = (priv->tag_ram->offset << 12) + tag_margin; tag_base += tag_align - 1; - tag_base /= tag_align; + ret = do_div(tag_base, tag_align); nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d4, tag_base); } -- 1.8.1.4

...his->offset; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c index bcca883..7288940 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c @@ -142,7 +139,7 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) tag_size += tag_align; tag_size = (tag_size + 0xfff) >> 12; /* round up */ - ret = nouveau_mm_tail(&pfb->vram, 0, tag_size, tag_size, 1, + ret = nouveau_mm_tail(&pfb->vram, 1, tag_size, tag_size, 1,...

...drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c @@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ struct nvc0_ltcg_priv { struct nouveau_ltcg base; u32 part_nr; u32 subp_nr; - struct nouveau_mm tags; u32 num_tags; + u32 tag_base; + struct nouveau_mm tags; struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram; }; @@ -117,10 +118,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align; int ret; - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr); - if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0) - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr); -...

...; @@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ struct nvc0_ltcg_priv { > struct nouveau_ltcg base; > u32 part_nr; > u32 subp_nr; > - struct nouveau_mm tags; > u32 num_tags; > + u32 tag_base; > + struct nouveau_mm tags; > struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram; > }; > > @@ -117,10 +118,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) > u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align; > int ret; > > - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr); > - if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type &gt...

Changes since v1: - Add missing else condition in ltc - Remove extra flags that slipped into nouveau_display.c and nv84_fence.c. Original cover letter: Patches 1-3 make the presence of a RAM device optional, and remove GK20A's dummy RAM driver we were using so far. On chips using shared memory, such a device can confuse the driver into moving objects where there is no need to, and can trick

A series I have waited too long to submit, and the recent refactoring made me pay the price of my perfectionism, so here are the features that are at least completed Patches 1-3 make the presence of a RAM device optional, and remove GK20A's dummy RAM driver we were using so far. On chips using shared memory, such a device can confuse the driver into moving objects where there is no need to,

...dev/ltc/gf100.c > +++ b/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/ltc/gf100.c > @@ -136,7 +136,8 @@ gf100_ltc_dtor(struct nvkm_object *object) > struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv = (void *)object; > > nvkm_mm_fini(&priv->tags); > - nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); > + if (pfb->ram) > + nvkm_mm_free(&pfb->vram, &priv->tag_ram); > > nvkm_ltc_destroy(priv); > } > @@ -149,6 +150,12 @@ gf100_ltc_init_tag_ram(struct nvkm_fb *pfb, struct nvkm_ltc_priv *priv) > u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag...

Thanks Ilia for the v2 review! Here is the v3 of this IOMMU support for GK20A series. Changes since v2: - Cleaner changes for ltc - Fixed typos in gk20a instmem IOMMU comments Changes since v1: - Add missing else condition in ltc - Remove extra flags that slipped into nouveau_display.c and nv84_fence.c. Original cover letter: Patches 1-3 make the presence of a RAM device optional, and remove

Changes since v3: - Use a single dma_attr for all DMA-API allocations in instmem instead of one per allocation - Use device.info.ram_size instead of pfb->ram to check whether VRAM is present outside of nvkm Changes since v2: - Cleaner changes for ltc - Fixed typos in gk20a instmem IOMMU comments Changes since v1: - Add missing else condition in ltc - Remove extra flags that slipped into