Re: [bisected] Re: drm, qxl: post 5.11 merge warning+explosion

2020-12-17 Thread Koenig, Christian
Please test it a bit. I don't know the qxl code at all, but it looks like the dma address array is just superfluous. Christian. Am 17.12.2020 17:55 schrieb Mike Galbraith : On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 17:38 +0100, Christian König wrote: > > Mike can you test the attached patch? Yup, one-liner made

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 1/2] drm/qxl: stop abusing TTM to call driver internal functions

2019-09-30 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 30.09.19 um 11:51 schrieb Frediano Ziglio: >> Am 27.09.19 um 18:31 schrieb Frediano Ziglio: The ttm_mem_io_* functions are actually internal to TTM and shouldn't be used in a driver. >>> As far as I can see by your second patch QXL is just using exported >>> (that is not

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 1/2] drm/qxl: stop abusing TTM to call driver internal functions

2019-09-30 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 27.09.19 um 18:31 schrieb Frediano Ziglio: >> The ttm_mem_io_* functions are actually internal to TTM and shouldn't be >> used in a driver. >> > As far as I can see by your second patch QXL is just using exported > (that is not internal) functions. > Not that the idea of making them internal is

Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drm: plumb attaching dev thru to prime_pin/unpin

2019-07-17 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 16.07.19 um 23:37 schrieb Rob Clark: > From: Rob Clark > > Needed in the following patch for cache operations. Well have you seen that those callbacks are deprecated? >* Deprecated hook in favour of _gem_object_funcs.pin. >* Deprecated hook in favour of

Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add drm_gem_vram_{pin/unpin}_reserved() and convert mgag200

2019-05-20 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 20.05.19 um 18:26 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > [CAUTION: External Email] > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 06:27:45PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >>> The new interfaces drm_gem_vram_{pin/unpin}_reserved() are variants of the >>> GEM

Re: [PATCH v3 01/19] drm: Add |struct drm_gem_vram_object| and helpers

2019-05-03 Thread Koenig, Christian
mgmt developers. > I think Noralf Tronnes or Gerd Hoffmann would also make good reviewers > for this, fairly close to what they've been working on in the past. I will try to take another look next week. Busy as usual here. Christian. > -Daniel > >> Best regards >> Thomas >

Re: [PATCH v3 01/19] drm: Add |struct drm_gem_vram_object| and helpers

2019-04-30 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 30.04.19 um 11:23 schrieb Sam Ravnborg: > [CAUTION: External Email] > > Hi Thomas. > + +/** + * Returns the container of type drm_gem_vram_object + * for field bo. + * @bo: the VRAM buffer object + * Returns: The containing GEM VRAM object +

Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] drm: Add |struct drm_gem_vram_object| callbacks for |struct ttm_bo_driver|

2019-04-24 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 24.04.19 um 14:05 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: > Hi Christian, > > Am 24.04.19 um 13:48 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: >> + >> +/* >> + * Helpers for struct ttm_bo_driver >> + */ >> + >> +static bool drm_is_gem_vram(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo) >> +{ >> +return (bo->destroy ==

Re: [PATCH 00/15] Share TTM code among framebuffer drivers

2019-04-16 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 16.04.19 um 13:03 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:05 PM Koenig, Christian > wrote: >> Am 15.04.19 um 21:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 6:21 PM Thomas Zimmermann >>> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>

Re: [PATCH 00/15] Share TTM code among framebuffer drivers

2019-04-16 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 15.04.19 um 21:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 6:21 PM Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >> Hi >> >> Am 15.04.19 um 17:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: >>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:50:40AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: Hi Am 09.04.19 um 09:12 schrieb kra...@redhat.com:

Re: [PATCH 00/15] Share TTM code among framebuffer drivers

2019-04-09 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 08.04.19 um 13:59 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: [SNIP] > If not for TTM, what would be the alternative? One VMA manager per > memory region per device? Since everybody vital seems to be on this mail thread anyway, let's use it a bit for brain storming what a possible replacement for TTM should

Re: [PATCH 00/15] Share TTM code among framebuffer drivers

2019-04-08 Thread Koenig, Christian
Well first problem is I'm not sure if that is a good idea. Essentially we want to get rid of TTM in the long run. On the other hand this work might aid with that goal, so it might be worth a try. Second is that this might actually not work of hand. The problem is here: > + /* TODO: This

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clean up TTM mmap offsets

2019-02-07 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 07.02.19 um 09:59 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: > Almost all TTM-based drivers use the same values for the mmap-able > range of BO addresses. Each driver therefore duplicates the > DRM_FILE_PAGE_OFFSET constant. OTOH, the mmap range's size is not > configurable by drivers. > > This patch set

Re: virtio-gpu without ARCH_HAS_SG_CHAIN

2018-10-30 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 30.10.18 um 08:23 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:46:34PM -0700, Michael Forney wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was looking at adding virtio-gpu support to tinyemu >> (https://bellard.org/tinyemu/). I got it to work on x86, but just for >> fun I tried it under riscv and ran into an

Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: Rename ttm_bo_global_{init,release}() to ttm_bo_global_ref_{,}()

2018-10-16 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 16.10.2018 um 10:04 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: > The functions ttm_bo_global_init() and ttm_bo_global_release() do not > receive an argument of type struct ttm_bo_global. Both take a struct > drm_global_reference that contains points to a struct ttm_bo_global_ref. > Renaming them reflects this.