From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/mm: Don't WARN if drm_mm_reserve_node
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:20:04 -0700
Message-ID: <20140409232004.GC4425@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1396905920-30049-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20140407221313.3c65dd3a@jbarnes-t420>
 <20140408172144.GB21168@intel.com>
 <20140409062537.GR8475@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140409062537.GR8475@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:25:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we
> > used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail.  I also didn't look
> > into exactly why we depend an ENOSPC return. That sounds fragile to me,
> > especially for a public interface.
> 
> Eh? This interface is explicitly used to check that the requested range
> is available.
> -Chris
> 

What I mean is, the node is already initialized, and we always expect it
to be available - at least with all the callers prior to the fastboot.

I didn't look very closely at how we get the fb objects from the
existing stolen memory, but my drive-by review would suggest it's much
better to deal with the redundancy at that level (or make this an i915
private function).

Removing the WARN is fine with me though, it's:
Tested-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>

My complaint was more with how we solved the problem initially, and not
with this patch itself.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center