[PATCH] drm/ttm: fix broken merge between drm-next and drm-misc-next

[PATCH] drm/ttm: fix broken merge between drm-next and drm-misc-next

[Christian König]

drm-next reverted the changes to ttm_tt_create() to do the
NULL check inside the function, but drm-misc-next adds new
users of this approach.

Re-apply the NULL check change inside the function to fix this.

Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c | 4 +++-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 97ac662a47cb..e3931e515906 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1180,7 +1180,7 @@ int ttm_bo_validate(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
 	/*
 	 * We might need to add a TTM.
 	 */
-	if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
+	if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM) {
 		ret = ttm_tt_create(bo, true);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
index 9aa4fbe386e6..1ccf1ef050d6 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
@@ -50,6 +50,9 @@ int ttm_tt_create(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, bool zero_alloc)
 
 	dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
 
+	if (bo->ttm)
+		return 0;
+
 	if (bdev->need_dma32)
 		page_flags |= TTM_PAGE_FLAG_DMA32;
 
@@ -67,7 +70,6 @@ int ttm_tt_create(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, bool zero_alloc)
 		page_flags |= TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG;
 		break;
 	default:
-		bo->ttm = NULL;
 		pr_err("Illegal buffer object type\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
-- 
2.17.1

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

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: fix broken merge between drm-next and drm-misc-next

[Dave Airlie]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 23:44, Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> drm-next reverted the changes to ttm_tt_create() to do the
> NULL check inside the function, but drm-misc-next adds new
> users of this approach.
>
> Re-apply the NULL check change inside the function to fix this.

Where is this problem now? only in drm-tip or have we baked the broken
mere already?

If it's baked then 'Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>`

If it's not baked, then please use the dim howto to put a fixup in the
right place.

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