On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Alex Deucher alexdeucher@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Christian König deathsimple@vodafone.de wrote:
Instead of returning the error handle it directly and while at it fix the comments about the ring lock.
Signed-off-by: Christian König deathsimple@vodafone.de Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer michel.daenzer@amd.com
For the series:
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com
Reviewed-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++------------ 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h index 77b4519b..5861ec8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ void radeon_fence_process(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring); bool radeon_fence_signaled(struct radeon_fence *fence); int radeon_fence_wait(struct radeon_fence *fence, bool interruptible); int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring); -int radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring); +void radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring); int radeon_fence_wait_any(struct radeon_device *rdev, struct radeon_fence **fences, bool intr); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c index 7b55625..be4e4f3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c @@ -440,14 +440,11 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_any(struct radeon_device *rdev, return 0; }
+/* caller must hold ring lock */ int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring) { uint64_t seq;
/* We are not protected by ring lock when reading current seq but* it's ok as worst case is we return to early while we could have* wait.*/ seq = atomic64_read(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].last_seq) + 1ULL; if (seq >= rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring]) { /* nothing to wait for, last_seq is@@ -457,15 +454,27 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring) return radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, seq, ring, false, false); }
-int radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring) +/* caller must hold ring lock */ +void radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring) {
/* We are not protected by ring lock when reading current seq* but it's ok as wait empty is call from place where no more* activity can be scheduled so there won't be concurrent access* to seq value.*/return radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring],ring, false, false);
uint64_t seq = rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring];while(1) {int r;r = radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, seq, ring, false, false);if (r == -EDEADLK) {mutex_unlock(&rdev->ring_lock);r = radeon_gpu_reset(rdev);mutex_lock(&rdev->ring_lock);if (!r)continue;}if (r) {dev_err(rdev->dev, "error waiting for ring to become"" idle (%d)\n", r);}return;}}
struct radeon_fence *radeon_fence_ref(struct radeon_fence *fence)
1.7.9.5
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel