On 16.10.2024 15:12, Christian König wrote:
Am 15.10.24 um 01:31 schrieb Adrián Larumbe:Does that mean in future commits the struct dma_fence_ops' .release pointer will be
Doesn't make any functional difference because generic dma_fence is theAs discussed with Sima we want to push into the exactly opposite direction
first panfrost_fence structure member, but I guess it doesn't hurt either.
because that requires that the panfrost module stays loaded as long as fences
are around.
done with altogether?
So clearly a NAK to this one here. Rather document on the structure that the
dma_fence structure must be the first member.
Regards,
Christian.
Signed-off-by: Adrián Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
index 5d83c6a148ec..fa219f719bdc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
@@ -85,9 +85,15 @@ static const char *panfrost_fence_get_timeline_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
}
}
+static void panfrost_fence_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
+{
+ kfree(to_panfrost_fence(fence));
+}
+
static const struct dma_fence_ops panfrost_fence_ops = {
.get_driver_name = panfrost_fence_get_driver_name,
.get_timeline_name = panfrost_fence_get_timeline_name,
+ .release = panfrost_fence_release,
};
static struct dma_fence *panfrost_fence_create(struct panfrost_device *pfdev, int js_num)