Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses always when lighting up more than one screen). All this fanciness happens in intel_alloc_plane_obj in intel_display.c.
Since no one else uses this we can savely remove the WARN without repercursions.
Reported-by: Ben Widawsky benjamin.widawsky@intel.com Cc: Ben Widawsky benjamin.widawsky@intel.com Cc: Jesse Barnes jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org Cc: Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c index a2d45b748f86..e4dfd5c3b15e 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c @@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ int drm_mm_reserve_node(struct drm_mm *mm, struct drm_mm_node *node) return 0; }
- WARN(1, "no hole found for node 0x%lx + 0x%lx\n", - node->start, node->size); return -ENOSPC; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_mm_reserve_node);
On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:25:20 +0200 Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
Yeah thanks, pushing this has been on my list for weeks now...
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:13:13PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look into exactly why we depend an ENOSPC return. That sounds fragile to me, especially for a public interface.
Obviously it makes the WARN go away, and we have only one other user of the interface, so it's correct.
So if both of you are happy, I won't stand in the way.
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
Eh? This interface is explicitly used to check that the requested range is available. -Chris
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:25:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
What I mean is, the node is already initialized, and we always expect it to be available - at least with all the callers prior to the fastboot.
I didn't look very closely at how we get the fb objects from the existing stolen memory, but my drive-by review would suggest it's much better to deal with the redundancy at that level (or make this an i915 private function).
Removing the WARN is fine with me though, it's: Tested-by: Ben Widawsky ben@bwidawsk.net
My complaint was more with how we solved the problem initially, and not with this patch itself.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Ben Widawsky -
Ben Widawsky -
Chris Wilson -
Daniel Vetter -
Jesse Barnes