On 30/07/2019 12:36, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 05:31:26PM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
On 2019年07月30日 17:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou david1.zhou@amd.com
Do we hit this with one of the syncobj igts?
Unforturnately, No, It's only hit in AMDGPU path, which combines timeline and binary to same path when timeline is enabled.
We can totally build that case with sw_fences which is what one of the IGT tests does.
-Lionel
Looks like lionel has something, maybe help review that? -Daniel
-David
-Daniel
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c index 929f7c64f9a2..bc7ec1679e4d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c @@ -151,9 +151,6 @@ void drm_syncobj_add_point(struct drm_syncobj *syncobj, spin_lock(&syncobj->lock); prev = drm_syncobj_fence_get(syncobj);
- /* You are adding an unorder point to timeline, which could cause payload returned from query_ioctl is 0! */
- if (prev && prev->seqno >= point)
DRM_ERROR("You are adding an unorder point to timeline!\n");-- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel