similar to: [PATCH] gpu: drm: qxl: Adding new typedef vm_fault_t

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:08:44PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For > > now, this is just documenting that the function returns > > a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances > > are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type.

Convert to use hmm_range_fault(). Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c index 93ed43c..8d56bd6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c +++

These are dead code since 3.10. If there is no plan to use it further, these can be removed forever. Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/crtc.c | 28 ---------------------------- 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/crtc.c index 1f08de4..ad0ef7d

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:21 AM Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > Interesting. I do remember seeing some snow on NV5's overlay at high > resolutions. Wonder if it was because of this missing code... What was the problem ? Does enabling this dead code will fix the problem ? > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:19 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:04 PM Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas at ideasonboard.com> wrote: > > The word 'descriptor' is misspelled throughout the tree. I think, *throughout the tree* is not appropriate* here. This patch has fixed it within the file. With that, Acked-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> > > Fix it up accordingly: >

Hi, > > So my expectation that a backmerge happens anyway after -rc1/2 is in > > line with reality, it is just to be delayed this time. I'll stay > > tuned ;) > > Is this patch already merged in drm-misc-next tree ? Pushed now. cheers, Gerd

"Zhou, Xianrong" <Xianrong.Zhou at amd.com> writes: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >> >>>>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >> >>>>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not >> >>>>> make the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or

GEM object functions deprecate several similar callback interfaces in struct drm_driver. This patch replaces the per-driver callbacks with per-instance callbacks in etnaviv. The only exception is gem_prime_mmap, which is non-trivial to convert. Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> ---

Device exclusive page table entries are used to prevent CPU access to a page whilst it is being accessed from a device. Typically this is used to implement atomic operations when the underlying bus does not support atomic access. When a CPU thread encounters a device exclusive entry it locks the page and restores the original entry after calling mmu notifiers to signal drivers that exclusive

Hello Christian K?nig, The patch 141b15e59175: "drm/nouveau: move io_reserve_lru handling into the driver v5" from Aug 21, 2020, leads to the following static checker warning: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c:148 nouveau_ttm_fault() warn: inconsistent returns '*bo->base.resv'. drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c 126 static vm_fault_t nouveau_ttm_fault(struct

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:27 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> wrote: > > Convert to use hmm_range_fault(). Any comment on this patch ? > > Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git

Hi Jason, On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:27 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> wrote: > > Convert to use hmm_range_fault(). > > Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> Would you like to take it through your new hmm tree or do I need to resend it ? > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1

Interesting. I do remember seeing some snow on NV5's overlay at high resolutions. Wonder if it was because of this missing code... On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:19 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com> wrote: > > These are dead code since 3.10. If there is no plan to use > it further, these can be removed forever. > > Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at

While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by Nouveau is actually not working at all. In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory management, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau instead. The patch should be functional correct, but is only compile tested! Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at

Device exclusive page table entries are used to prevent CPU access to a page whilst it is being accessed from a device. Typically this is used to implement atomic operations when the underlying bus does not support atomic access. When a CPU thread encounters a device exclusive entry it locks the page and restores the original entry after calling mmu notifiers to signal drivers that exclusive

Am 09.10.19 um 17:39 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:12:53PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > [SNIP] >> +static vm_fault_t nouveau_ttm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) >> +{ >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma; >> + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = vma->vm_private_data; >> + pgprot_t prot; >> + vm_fault_t ret; >> + >> +

Just a gentle ping on this. Already got the Acked-by from Daniel, but I need some of the nouveau guys to test this since I can only compile test it. Regards, Christian.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:11PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This replaces the hacky ->fault callback, which is currently directly > called from common code through a hmm specific data structure as an > exercise in layering violations. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > Reviewed-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com> > --- >

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 11:57:28PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > The fault handler code is commented since v4.2. > If there is no plan to enable the fault handler > code in future, we can remove this dead code. Indeed, but please without tyops in the $subject line. cheers, Gerd

Hi Jason, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on vhost/linux-next] [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.7 next-20200529] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the base tree in git format-patch, please see