On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:48:49 +0100 Adrián Larumbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14.09.2026 10:36, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 00:28:02 +0100 > > Adrián Larumbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Since the moment we call drm_dev_register() the device should be in a > > > position to accept jobs, so it's best if the shrinker is already > > > initialized by then. > > > > > > On top of that, make shrinker functions take an panfrost_device pointer > > > like other functions in the same sequence and rename them accordingly. > > > > > > Essentially mimic the init/fini behaviour in Panthor. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrián Larumbe <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> > > > > One remark below. > > > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c | 8 +++++++- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_drv.c | 6 ------ > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c | 26 > > > ++++++++++++++---------- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.h | 7 ++++--- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem_shrinker.c | 8 ++------ > > > 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c > > > index 485349faf251..05c40d5a20b5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c > > > @@ -280,9 +280,14 @@ int panfrost_device_init(struct panfrost_device > > > *pfdev) > > > if (err) > > > goto out_job; > > > > > > - panfrost_gem_init(pfdev); > > > + err = panfrost_gem_init(pfdev); > > > > It feels weird to have the GEM subsystem initialized last when you > > consider the fact other subsystems might want to allocate GEMs in their > > _init() function. I know it's where the panfrost_gem_init() is right > > now, and that ultimately it doesn't prevent anyone from allocating > > GEMs, but I think it would make sense have this called before any of > > the other subsystem init functions, still. > > I think we discussed having panfrost_gem_init() be called before the other > subsystem init functions, but then I checked panthor and saw it's also being > called right after all the others there too. I think you're right that it's > best to initialise gem first, because I wonder whether other subsystem init > functions creating GEMs when the mount point for huge page-backed objects > hasn't been created yet could lead to some sort of trouble. > > However, given how much this patch series has already grown, I believe it'd > be best to leave this change for a later one. Sounds good to me.
