On 03/19/2014 09:54 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c index 7a01911c16f8..a6ceb2c6f36d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c @@ -417,13 +417,19 @@ static void ring_write_tail(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, I915_WRITE_TAIL(ring, value); }-u32 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring) +u64 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring) { drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private; - u32 acthd_reg = INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4 ? - RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base) : ACTHD; - return I915_READ(acthd_reg); + u32 reg = (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4 ? + RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base) : ACTHD); + u64 acthd; + + acthd = I915_READ(reg); + if (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 8) + acthd |= (u64)I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base)) << 32; + + return acthd; }
Can it happen, and does anyone care, for a low dword to wrap so instead of say, 0x00010000, this function falsely returns 0x0001ffff ?
Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
