Re: [PATCH v5 01/25] drm/gpuvm: Pass map arguments through a struct

["Ghimiray, Himal Prasad" <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>]

On 05-08-2025 15:40, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Tue Aug 5, 2025 at 7:24 AM CEST, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote:
>> On 05-08-2025 09:26, Matthew Brost wrote:
>>> Also I believe Danilo's suggestion here was to define drm_gpuvm_map_req
>>> as the argument and then embed drm_gpuva_op_map within
>>> drm_gpuvm_map_req. So in patch [1], flags would be added to
>>> drm_gpuvm_map_req rather than drm_gpuva_op_map.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/666211/?series=149550&rev=5
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Initially, I considered using drm_gpuvm_map_req
>> struct instead of passing drm_gpuva_op_map directly to the gpuvm layer,
>> allowing it to handle split/merge decisions independently.
> 
> Generally, we should only have the flags field on struct drm_gpuva_op_map if we
> need to let GPUVM pass flags for (re)map operations to drivers.
> 
>> However, the upcoming patch [1] relies on this flag to determine
>> driver-side behavior. So at the end drm_gpuva_op_map and
>> drm_gpuvm_map_req might end up identical. Based on that—and Danilo’s
>> feedback on this patch [2] I thought It will be better to keep a single
>> op_map struct with the flag included.
> 
> Let's leave this to the upcoming patches, we can always adjust. For now, let's
> go with what Matt summarized above please.

Sure. Thanks. will update next version to use drm_gpuvm_map_req

> 
>> Boris, could you please confirm if the flag will be useful on the driver
>> side [1]?
>>
>> [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/662832/?series=151264&rev=2
>> [2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/662819/?series=151264&rev=2