On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:10:55PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:33:09PM +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index 94ac51f..cb9dd8e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -8895,6 +8895,10 @@ static bool page_flip_finished(struct intel_crtc
> > *crtc)
> > struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >
> > + if (i915_reset_in_progress(&dev_priv->gpu_error) ||
> > + crtc->reset_counter !=
> > atomic_read(&dev_priv->gpu_error.reset_counter))
> > + return true;
>
> I really don't like this. The reset_count is incremented when the reset
> starts, so we shouldn't get here with
> crtc->reset_counter == gpu_error->reset_counter && reset_in_progress().
>
> I'd prefer this to be
> if (i915_has_reset(dev_priv, crtc->reset_counter)) return true;
>
> with a guard when reading the gpu reset_counter:
>
> ret = i915_get_reset_counter(dev_priv, &intel_crtc->reset_counter);
> if (ret)
> goto cleanup;
>
> that does something like
>
> static inline int i915_get_reset_counter(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> int *value)
> {
> *value = atomic_read(dev_priv->gpu_error.reset_counter);
> if (*value & I915_WEDGED)
> return -EIO;
> if (*value & I915_RESET_IN_PROGRESS_FLAG)
> return -EAGAIN;
> return 0;
> }
Bleh, I've seen the light and this is overly complicated and doesn't
actually help make the code more readable than
if (intel_crtc->reset_counter !=
atomic_read(&dev_priv->gpu_error.reset_counter))
return true;
The original patch is
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
