On 05/07/16 12:56, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/07/16 12:50, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 04/07/16 15:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
At the moment HAS_GUC_UCODE == HAS_GUC == IS_GEN9 ==
(INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen_mask & BIT(8)), which is true but not one. And
module parameters are integers and not booleans so compiler will not
normalize the value for us.
Quick and easy fix for the GuC loading code and the whole area can
be evaluated afterwards.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
index d925e2daeb24..72ea5b97e242 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
@@ -687,9 +687,9 @@ void intel_guc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
/* A negative value means "use platform default" */
if (i915.enable_guc_loading < 0)
- i915.enable_guc_loading = HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev);
+ i915.enable_guc_loading = !!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev);
if (i915.enable_guc_submission < 0)
- i915.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev);
+ i915.enable_guc_submission = !!HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev);
if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev)) {
fw_path = NULL;
Or we could just fix the IS_GENx() macros:
You mean
commit af1346a0f38fe5b762729a91ed10c7c7f59b76c9
Author: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Jul 4 15:50:23 2016 +0100
drm/i915: Explicitly convert some macros to boolean values
:D
Yeah, I was reading email out-of-order. But I like mine better anyway
(refactor into a single underlying macro, and more parentheses).
BTW I tried
#define IS_GEN2(dev) (IS_GEN(dev, 2, 2))
(because the IS_GEN() macro already has the !! booleanisation) but it
increased the codesize by ~4K. Hence the separate _IS_GEN().
Still, I think being explicit when assigning boolean type macros to
integer is a good thing to do. Because I thought true is defined as
non-zero in C. Unless I am behind the times.
Regards,
Tvrtko
The *result* of a comparison or other boolean operation is and always
has been 0-or-1 in C (whereas in BCPL TRUE was -1). It's the *inputs* to
boolean operations that are tested for zero/nonzero.
OTOH maybe I will change the enable_guc_{loading,submission) values to
an enum or set of #defines, and then the assignment of the default
values will use ?: to pick appropriate values.
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
