MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211116155545.473311-1-robdclark@gmail.com> <CAMi1Hd0qzu1t6QeZCNgSoTrScZL0_XQnZUPkQ5y7D+oV49GREw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c7741be3-43ec-307b-f5bd-3d19725df76c@amd.com> <0336e09d-59c4-3155-434a-0b04fda15bb6@kali.org>
In-Reply-To: <0336e09d-59c4-3155-434a-0b04fda15bb6@kali.org>
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:09:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGs1hmS7hNC+OOvy=eHjvYhk=GLFX5T9iHWO=PUvGxNyDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/scheduler: fix drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies
 harder
To:     Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>,
        Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 5:23 PM Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/17/21 1:27 AM, Christian K=C3=B6nig wrote:
> > Am 16.11.21 um 19:30 schrieb Amit Pundir:
> >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 21:21, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
> >>>
> >>> drm_sched_job_add_dependency() could drop the last ref, so we need
> >>> to do
> >>> the dma_fence_get() first.
> >>>
> >> It fixed the splats I saw on RB5 (sm8250 | A650). Thanks.
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>
> >
> > I've added my rb, pushed this with the original fix to drm-misc-fixes
> > and cleaned up the obvious fallout between drm-misc-fixes and
> > drm-misc-next in drm-tip.
> >
> > Thanks for the help and sorry for the noise,
> > Christian.
> >
> I've run into this splat on the Lenovo Yoga C630 on 5.16-rc1 - are these
> 2 patches (which fix it) going to be heading to 5.16 or were they
> targeted at 5.17?

these should be for v5.16

BR,
-R