On 18/05/17 06:17 PM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 18.05.2017 um 11:08 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>
>>
>> We know how the placements were initialized in these cases, so we can
>> set the restrictions directly without a loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>
[...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
>> index 2ca09f111f08..60688fa5ef98 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
>> @@ -375,11 +375,7 @@ void amdgpu_uvd_free_handles(struct amdgpu_device
>> *adev, struct drm_file *filp)
>> static void amdgpu_uvd_force_into_uvd_segment(struct amdgpu_bo *abo)
>> {
>> - int i;
>> - for (i = 0; i < abo->placement.num_placement; ++i) {
>> - abo->placements[i].fpfn = 0 >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> - abo->placements[i].lpfn = (256 * 1024 * 1024) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> - }
>> + abo->placements[0].lpfn = (256 * 1024 * 1024) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> This is not correct. The restriction applies to all placements, not only
> the first one.
I see, there can be multiple placements in amdgpu_uvd_cs_pass1, if cmd
!= 0x0 and != 0x3? I'll drop this hunk then, thanks.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
