Please ignore this one, it's to hot here and I'm typing to fast :)
Christian.
Am 20.08.20 um 17:24 schrieb 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 Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/386628/
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;