Am 02.01.20 um 10:47 schrieb Nirmoy:
On 1/1/20 1:52 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 19.12.19 um 13:01 schrieb Nirmoy:
Reviewed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxx>
On 12/19/19 12:42 PM, Le Ma wrote:
This workaround does not affect other asics because amdgpu only
need expose
one gfx sched to user for now.
Change-Id: Ica92b8565a89899aebe0eba7b2b5a25159b411d3
Signed-off-by: Le Ma <le.ma@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
index 63f6365..64e2bab 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
@@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ static int amdgpu_ctx_init(struct amdgpu_device
*adev,
switch (i) {
case AMDGPU_HW_IP_GFX:
- scheds = adev->gfx.gfx_sched;
+ sched = &adev->gfx.gfx_ring[0].sched;
+ scheds = &sched;
num_scheds = 1;
Mhm, we should probably rather fix this here and don't expose a GFX
ring when the hardware doesn't have one.
Hi Christian,
Do you mean by not initializing entity for gfx when not available?
Well we still initialize it, but with num_scheds=0.
Christian.
Christian.
break;
case AMDGPU_HW_IP_COMPUTE:
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7Cnirmoy.das%40amd.com%7Cbc5fa498efe84fcfb00b08d78eb97049%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637134799421291347&sdata=FxkwaCrbIV28HH18xorgwmzRPCMA1I9IkRkgE1LF80Y%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
