On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:34:41AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > When we don't have any workaround to emit we should celebrate, not bother.
Well except that on the platforms where this fires we really should have some, most likely. This is in a way similar to all the other WARN_ON cases we have to make sure nothing gets lost in platform enabling. -Daniel > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 2 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > index 7670a0f..0bb50f6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > @@ -1096,7 +1096,7 @@ static int intel_logical_ring_workarounds_emit(struct > intel_engine_cs *ring, > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > struct i915_workarounds *w = &dev_priv->workarounds; > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(w->count == 0)) > + if (w->count == 0) > return 0; > > ring->gpu_caches_dirty = true; > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > index 12a36f0..3d99bb1 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > @@ -682,7 +682,7 @@ static int intel_ring_workarounds_emit(struct > intel_engine_cs *ring, > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > struct i915_workarounds *w = &dev_priv->workarounds; > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(w->count == 0)) > + if (w->count == 0) > return 0; > > ring->gpu_caches_dirty = true; > -- > 1.9.3 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
