On 28/07/16 16:29, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:23:42PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 25/07/16 08:44, Chris Wilson wrote:
As GEN6+ is now a simple variant on the basic breadcrumbs + tail write,
reuse the common code.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 74 +++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
index 68df689a9d1e..a42d878009e6 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
@@ -1428,26 +1428,19 @@ static int gen6_signal(struct drm_i915_gem_request
*signaller_req)
return 0;
}
-/**
- * gen6_emit_request - Update the semaphore mailbox registers
- *
- * @request - request to write to the ring
- *
- * Update the mailbox registers in the *other* rings with the current seqno.
- * This acts like a signal in the canonical semaphore.
- */
-static int gen6_emit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
+static void i9xx_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = request->i915;
+
+ I915_WRITE_TAIL(request->engine,
+ request->tail % (request->ring->size - 1));
+}
wrong mod-thing as previously noted - I don't know whether this is
already fixed up elsewhere.
You previously replied to altered patches with the recent changes undone
in favour of introducing intel_ring_offset().
-Chris
Fine, I just wasn't sure what got superseded in which string-of-patches
(as there seem to be quite a lot running in parallel here) and didn't
want this instance to get missed (as it had already got an R-B).
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
