Waiting for seqno-1 in our object synchronization code is an
implementation detail given how we've decided to do the waits within the
rest of our code.
Requested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widaw...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 0115b12..71934dd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -2002,7 +2002,7 @@ i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
}
- ret = to->sync_to(to, from, seqno - 1);
+ ret = to->sync_to(to, from, seqno);
if (!ret)
from->sync_seqno[idx] = seqno;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
index dfdb613..467b331 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
@@ -482,6 +482,12 @@ intel_ring_sync(struct intel_ring_buffer *waiter,
MI_SEMAPHORE_COMPARE |
MI_SEMAPHORE_REGISTER;
+ /* Throughout all of the GEM code, seqno passed implies our current
+ * seqno is >= the last seqno executed. However for hardware the
+ * comparison is strictly greater than.
+ */
+ seqno -= 1;
+
ret = intel_ring_begin(waiter, 4);
if (ret)
return ret;
--
1.7.10
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
