On Tue Aug 5, 2025 at 7:24 AM CEST, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote: > On 05-08-2025 09:26, Matthew Brost wrote: >> Also I believe Danilo's suggestion here was to define drm_gpuvm_map_req >> as the argument and then embed drm_gpuva_op_map within >> drm_gpuvm_map_req. So in patch [1], flags would be added to >> drm_gpuvm_map_req rather than drm_gpuva_op_map. >> >> Matt >> >> [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/666211/?series=149550&rev=5 > > Hi Matt, > > Thanks for the review. Initially, I considered using drm_gpuvm_map_req > struct instead of passing drm_gpuva_op_map directly to the gpuvm layer, > allowing it to handle split/merge decisions independently.
Generally, we should only have the flags field on struct drm_gpuva_op_map if we need to let GPUVM pass flags for (re)map operations to drivers. > However, the upcoming patch [1] relies on this flag to determine > driver-side behavior. So at the end drm_gpuva_op_map and > drm_gpuvm_map_req might end up identical. Based on that—and Danilo’s > feedback on this patch [2] I thought It will be better to keep a single > op_map struct with the flag included. Let's leave this to the upcoming patches, we can always adjust. For now, let's go with what Matt summarized above please. > Boris, could you please confirm if the flag will be useful on the driver > side [1]? > > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/662832/?series=151264&rev=2 > [2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/662819/?series=151264&rev=2
