On 2026-06-23 13:41:12+01:00, Akash Goel wrote: > On 6/23/26 13:09, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 12:17:51 +0100 > > Akash Goel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Nah, you're correct, the patching of the drm_gpuva is independent of the > > adjusted unmap range, so we should be good even if we don't adjust this > > range for evicted sparse mappings. Sorry for the noise. > > No worries. Thanks for confirming. > > Since I had a closer look at the code, sorry I have another doubt. > > Do we really need the call to 'panthor_fix_sparse_map_offset()' in the > following code block ?. The 'op->remap.next->gem.offset' would already > have been patched before.
You're right, it's completely unnecessary. Maybe replace it with a comment that says the right offset had already been adjusted earlier in the function? Other than that: Reviewed-by: Adrián Larumbe <[email protected]> > > if (op->remap.next) { > u64 addr = op->remap.next->va.addr; > u64 size = unmap_start + unmap_range - op->remap.next->va.addr; > > if (!unmap_vma->evicted && size > 0) { > struct drm_gpuva_op_map map_op = { > .va.addr = addr, > .va.range = size, > .gem.obj = op->remap.next->gem.obj, > .gem.offset = op->remap.next->gem.offset, > }; > panthor_fix_sparse_map_offset(&map_op, > unmap_vma->flags); > > ret = panthor_vm_exec_map_op(vm, unmap_vma->flags, > &map_op); > > > Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> > > Sorry I realized that indentation needs to be fixed in my patch. > > Will send a v2 and ad your r-b tag. > > Best regards > Akash
