...
+/*
- Get the requested iova but don't pin it. Fails if the requested iova is
- not available. Doesn't need a put because iovas are currently valid for
- the life of the object.
- Setting an iova of zero will clear the vma.
- */
+int msm_gem_set_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t iova)+{
- int ret = 0;
nit: No need to initialize the ret
- msm_gem_lock(obj);
- if (!iova) {
ret = clear_iova(obj, aspace);- } else {
struct msm_gem_vma *vma;vma = get_vma_locked(obj, aspace, iova, iova + obj->size);if (IS_ERR(vma)) {ret = PTR_ERR(vma);} else if (GEM_WARN_ON(vma->iova != iova)) {clear_iova(obj, aspace);ret = -ENOSPC;
The (vma->iova != iova) means that vma is already set, but to a different address. Is -ENOSPC really appropriate here? -EBUSY or -EINVAL looks more natural to me.
}- }
- msm_gem_unlock(obj);
- return ret;
+}
/*
- Unpin a iova by updating the reference counts. The memory isn't actually
- purged until something else (shrinker, mm_notifier, destroy, etc) decides
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h index 38d66e1248b1..efa2e5c19f1e 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h @@ -38,6 +38,12 @@ struct msm_gem_address_space {
/* @faults: the number of GPU hangs associated with this address space */ int faults;
- /** @va_start: lowest possible address to allocate */
- uint64_t va_start;
- /** @va_size: the size of the address space (in bytes) */
- uint64_t va_size;
};
struct msm_gem_address_space * @@ -144,6 +150,8 @@ struct msm_gem_vma *msm_gem_get_vma_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj, struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace); int msm_gem_get_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj, struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t *iova); +int msm_gem_set_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t iova);int msm_gem_get_and_pin_iova_range(struct drm_gem_object *obj, struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t *iova, u64 range_start, u64 range_end);
nit: There is an odd mix of uint64_t and u64 (and alike) in the MSM code :) The uint64_t variant shouldn't be used by kernel code in general and checkpatch should want about it.