Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
To: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
	"Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
	"Matt Roper" <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] drm/xe: Refactor BO flags
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:26:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240314052619.2628396-1-lucas.demarchi@intel.com> (raw)

Change the flag names to follow a specific pattern. There shouldn't be
any change in behavior here. The removal of CREATE name is up for
debate; it seemed appropriate to remove, but let's hear what others
think.

Next step that I'm thinkig about doing is to remove
XE_BO_FLAG_VRAM_IF_DGFX(). For that, during the tile initialization we
set a default_bo_placement like:

	if (IS_DGFX(xe))
		tile->default_bo_placement = XE_BO_FLAG_VRAM0 << (tile)->id;
	else
		tile->default_bo_placement = XE_BO_FLAG_SYSTEM;

Still need to check all callers because some are passing tile to the
create function, but root tile to the placement. I'm not sure yet if
that was intended or just an accident.  If the latter, then we could
very well leave the placement to the xe_bo_create*() when no placement
is set by the caller.  Thoughts?

Lucas De Marchi (2):
  drm/xe: Stop passing user flag to xe_bo_create_user()
  drm/xe: Normalize bo flags macros

 .../xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_gem_stolen.h  |   2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fb_bo.c      |   8 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fbdev_fb.c   |  16 +--
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_dsb_buffer.c    |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_fb_pin.c        |  16 +--
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_hdcp_gsc.c      |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_plane_initial.c |   6 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_bo.c              |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c         |  54 +++++-----
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_migrate.c         |  20 ++--
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c                    | 102 +++++++++---------
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.h                    |  41 ++++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo_evict.c              |   2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c               |   2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c                  |   8 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gsc.c                   |   8 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gsc_proxy.c             |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ads.c               |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c                |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_hwconfig.c          |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_log.c               |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c                |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_huc.c                   |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_engine.c             |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lmtt.c                  |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c                   |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_memirq.c                |   8 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_migrate.c               |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pt.c                    |  10 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sa.c                    |   4 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ttm_stolen_mgr.c        |   2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c                 |   2 +-
 32 files changed, 183 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0


             reply	other threads:[~2024-03-14  5:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-14  5:26 Lucas De Marchi [this message]
2024-03-14  5:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/xe: Stop passing user flag to xe_bo_create_user() Lucas De Marchi
2024-03-14 17:07   ` Matthew Auld
2024-03-14  5:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/xe: Normalize bo flags macros Lucas De Marchi
2024-03-14 17:19   ` Matthew Auld
2024-03-14  5:32 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/xe: Refactor BO flags Patchwork
2024-03-14  5:33 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-03-14  5:33 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-03-14  5:45 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-03-14  5:47 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-03-14  5:48 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-03-14  6:31 ` ✗ CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2024-03-14 16:41   ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-03-15  6:38     ` Musial, Ewelina
2024-03-16  0:52       ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-03-14 19:17 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/xe: Refactor BO flags (rev2) Patchwork
2024-03-14 19:17 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-03-14 19:18 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-03-14 19:30 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-03-14 19:33 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-03-14 19:34 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-03-14 19:57 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240314052619.2628396-1-lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --to=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox