On 30/07/2019 12:27, 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? -Daniel
With one of the tests sitting on the mailing list waiting for review, yes.
-Lionel
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