On 16/04/2019 13:40, Christian König wrote:
Am 16.04.19 um 14:30 schrieb Lionel Landwerlin:
We've been somewhat inconsistent when adding the new ioctl and
returned ENODEV instead of EOPNOTSUPPORTED upon failing the syncobj
capibility.
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com>
Fixes: ea569910cbab98 ("drm/syncobj: add transition iotcls between
binary and timeline v2")
Fixes: 01d6c357837918 ("drm/syncobj: add support for timeline point
wait v8")
Cc: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Cc: Chunming Zhou <david1.z...@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com> for the series.
How about also adding a DRM_CAP_TIMELINE_SYNCOBJ as Daniel suggested
so that userspace can note that as well?
Thanks,
Christian.
Thanks Christian, I forgot about that...
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
index c534c5d46f1e..fb65f13d25cf 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
@@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ drm_syncobj_transfer_ioctl(struct drm_device
*dev, void *data,
int ret;
if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_SYNCOBJ))
- return -ENODEV;
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
if (args->pad)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ drm_syncobj_timeline_wait_ioctl(struct
drm_device *dev, void *data,
int ret = 0;
if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_SYNCOBJ))
- return -ENODEV;
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
if (args->flags & ~(DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_ALL |
DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT |
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
