Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/overlay: Fix active retire callback alignment

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 29/04/2021 18:31, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 07:31:43PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 09:35:29AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>>
>>> __i915_active_call annotation is required on the retire callback to ensure
>>> correct function alignment.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>> Fixes: a21ce8ad12d2 ("drm/i915/overlay: Switch to using i915_active tracking")
>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c
>>> index fffbde4256db..428819ba18dd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c
>>> @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ static void intel_overlay_off_tail(struct intel_overlay *overlay)
>>>   		i830_overlay_clock_gating(dev_priv, true);
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> -static void
>>> +__i915_active_call static void
>>
>> Am I blind or are we just packing flag bits into a pointer, passing
>> that to a function, and then immediately unpack the bits again in
>> said function? Why not just pass the flags explicitly?
>>
>> Looks like you missed auto_retire()?
> 
> Ah, just saw the other patch from Stéphane.
> 
> For the series:
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

Thanks Ville, pushed.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel