Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Fix i915_vma_pin_iomap()

[Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>]

On 10.6.2022 20.43, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 15:53, Matthew Auld
> <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 13:12, Juha-Pekka Heikkila
>> <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Display might allocate a smem object and call
>>> i915_vma_pin_iomap(), the existing code will fail.
>>>
>>> This fix was suggested by Chris P Wilson, that we pin
>>> the smem with i915_gem_object_pin_map_unlocked().
>>>
>>> v2 (jheikkil): Change i915_gem_object_pin_map_unlocked to
>>>                 i915_gem_object_pin_map
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Jari Tahvanainen <jari.tahvanainen@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> 
> Although maybe consider putting this as patch 1, and then reword the
> commit title/message to be more like "drm/i915: extend
> i915_vma_iomap()" or so, which then becomes a prep patch for
> supporting the dpt fallback to smem. Otherwise it looks like this
> patch is basically just fixing the first patch to not trigger the
> WARN_ON(), which seems iffy IMO. Each patch by itself should ideally
> be functional.

Probably easiest is to put patch 1 in as last, it's the final customer 
for these two other patches. This way if someone will end up doing 
bisecting there would be nothing interesting to see with these.

I did finally get ci to look all green after last weeks outages. I'd 
guess these patches are ready to be pushed but I don't have commit 
rights to drm-tip. Are you able to help with these or I'll go bother 
Imre or Jani to get them into tip?

/Juha-Pekka