Am 26.06.2017 um 12:53 schrieb Huang Rui:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:18:52PM +0800, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.06.2017 um 09:03 schrieb Huang Rui:
Signed-off-by: Huang Rui <ray.hu...@amd.com>
Cc: Xiaojie Yuan <xiaojie.y...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_psp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_psp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/
amdgpu/amdgpu_psp.c
index 5bed483..60d0455 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_psp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_psp.c
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ psp_cmd_submit_buf(struct psp_context *psp,
ret = psp_cmd_submit(psp, ucode, cmd_buf_mc_addr,
fence_mc_addr, index);
- while (*((unsigned int *)psp->fence_buf) != index) {
+ while (*((unsigned int *)psp->fence_buf) < index) {
That is still horrible incorrect. At bare minimum you need to use the
READ_ONCE() macro here.
So, READ_ONCE(*((unsigned int *)psp->fence_buf)) < index.
Do you mean the complier might cause to read the previous fence buffer
value if we don't add READ_ONCE?
Yes, exactly. I would guess that this only works by coincident because
the msleep() is causing a barrier here.
Christian.
But it would be even better to completely drop this and use the fence
implementation in amdgpu_fence.c as well.
I understand, I will refactor it after S3 stress completed.
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
