On 30/07/2019 12:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@xxxxxxx>
Do we hit this with one of the syncobj igts?
-Daniel
With one of the tests sitting on the mailing list waiting for review, yes.
-Lionel
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
index 929f7c64f9a2..bc7ec1679e4d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
@@ -151,9 +151,6 @@ void drm_syncobj_add_point(struct drm_syncobj *syncobj,
spin_lock(&syncobj->lock);
prev = drm_syncobj_fence_get(syncobj);
- /* You are adding an unorder point to timeline, which could cause payload returned from query_ioctl is 0! */
- if (prev && prev->seqno >= point)
- DRM_ERROR("You are adding an unorder point to timeline!\n");
dma_fence_chain_init(chain, prev, fence, point);
rcu_assign_pointer(syncobj->fence, &chain->base);
--
2.17.1
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
