Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou , but one commit inline...
On 2017年09月11日 22:55, Christian König wrote:
From: Christian König
There is no guarantee that the last BO_VA actually needed an update.
Additional to that all command submissions must wait for moved BOs to
be cleared, not just the first o
+if (bo_va->base.bo->tbo.resv != vm->root.base.bo->tbo.resv) {
When we expand mapping fence, we will sync all moved update and clear
here, instead of moved update in amdgpu_vm_bo_update in previous patch.
Yeah, turned out this patch actually didn't worked as expected because
the bo
On 2017年09月11日 18:58, Christian König wrote:
From: Christian König
There is no guarantee that the last BO_VA actually needed an update.
Good catch. One comment inline
Additional to that all command submissions must wait for moved BOs to
be cleared, not just the first one.
Signed-off-by: C
From: Christian König
There is no guarantee that the last BO_VA actually needed an update.
Additional to that all command submissions must wait for moved BOs to
be cleared, not just the first one.
v2: Don't overwrite any newer fence.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amd
From: Christian König
There is no guarantee that the last BO_VA actually needed an update.
Additional to that all command submissions must wait for moved BOs to
be cleared, not just the first one.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/d
