Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: provide default page protection for UML

[Anton Ivanov]

On 02/09/2021 06:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
> > > member named 'x86', so provide a default page protection mode
> > > for CONFIG_UML.
> > >
> > > Mends this build error:
> > > ../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c: In function 
> > > ‘ttm_prot_from_caching’:
> > > ../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c:59:24: error: ‘struct cpuinfo_um’ 
> > > has no member named ‘x86’
> > >    else if (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 3)
> > >                          ^
> > >
> > > Fixes: 3bf3710e3718 ("drm/ttm: Add a generic TTM memcpy move for 
> > > page-based iomem")
> > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c |    4 ++++
> > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > --- linux-next-20210901.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c
> > > +++ linux-next-20210901/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c
> > > @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ pgprot_t ttm_prot_from_caching(enum ttm_
> > >       if (caching == ttm_cached)
> > >           return tmp;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_UML
> > > +    tmp = pgprot_noncached(tmp);
> > > +#else
> > >   #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
> > >       if (caching == ttm_write_combined)
> > >           tmp = pgprot_writecombine(tmp);
> > > @@ -69,6 +72,7 @@ pgprot_t ttm_prot_from_caching(enum ttm_
> > >   #if defined(__sparc__)
> > >       tmp = pgprot_noncached(tmp);
> > >   #endif
> > > +#endif
> > >       return tmp;
> > >   }
> >
> > Patch looks OK.
> >
> > I have a question though - why all of DRM is not !UML in config. Not 
> > like we can use them.
>
> I have no idea about that.
> Hopefully one of the (other) UML maintainers can answer you.

Touche.

We will discuss that and possibly push a patch to !UML that part of the 
tree. IMHO it is not applicable.

A.

> thanks.


--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/