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.huang at amd.com>
> > Cc: Xiaojie Yuan <Xiaojie.Yuan at 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?
> 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
