When this was introduced in

commit a519435a96597d8cd96123246fea4ae5a6c90b02
Author: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Date:   Tue Oct 20 16:34:16 2015 +0200

    dma-buf/fence: add fence_wait_any_timeout function v2

there was a restriction added that this only works if the dma-fence
uses the dma_fence_default_wait hook. Which works for amdgpu, which is
the only caller. Well, until you share some buffers with e.g. i915,
then you get an -EINVAL.

But there's really no reason for this, because all drivers must
support callbacks. The special ->wait hook is only as an optimization;
if the driver needs to create a worker thread for an active callback,
then it can avoid to do that if it knows that there's a process
context available already. So ->wait is just an optimization, just
using the logic in dma_fence_default_wait() should work for all
drivers.

Let's remove this restriction.

Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.sem...@linaro.org>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gust...@padovan.org>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-...@lists.linaro.org
Cc: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
index 7b5b40d6b70e..59049375bd19 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
@@ -503,11 +503,6 @@ dma_fence_wait_any_timeout(struct dma_fence **fences, 
uint32_t count,
        for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
                struct dma_fence *fence = fences[i];
 
-               if (fence->ops->wait != dma_fence_default_wait) {
-                       ret = -EINVAL;
-                       goto fence_rm_cb;
-               }
-
                cb[i].task = current;
                if (dma_fence_add_callback(fence, &cb[i].base,
                                           dma_fence_default_wait_cb)) {
-- 
2.17.0

Reply via email to