On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 14:10:45 +0200 Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com wrote:
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c @@ -254,6 +254,9 @@ static int panfrost_acquire_object_fences(struct panfrost_job *job) return ret; }
if (job->bo_flags[i] & PANFROST_BO_REF_NO_IMPLICIT_DEP)continue;This breaks dma_resv rules. I'll send out patch set fixing this pattern in other drivers, I'll ping you on that for what you need to change. Should go out today or so.
I guess you're talking about [1]. TBH, I don't quite see the point of exposing a 'no-implicit' flag if we end up forcing this implicit dep anyway, but I'm probably missing something.
I'm really wondering if the behavior that the exclusive fences replaces all the shared fences was such a good idea.
Is that what's done in [1], or are you talking about a different patchset/approach?
It just allows drivers to mess up things in a way which can be easily used to compromise the system.
I must admit I'm a bit lost, so I'm tempted to drop that flag for now :-).
[1]https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/443711/?series=92334&rev=3