On 03/02/2017 10:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
In commit 957870f93412 ("drm/i915: Split out i915_gem_object_set_tiling()"),
I swapped an alignment check for IS_ALIGNED and in the process removed
the less-than check. That check turns out to be important as it was the
only rejection for stride == 0. Tvrtko did spot it, but I was
overconfident in the IS_ALIGNED() conversion.
Fixes: 957870f93412 ("drm/i915: Split out i915_gem_object_set_tiling()")
Testcase: igt/gem_tiling_max_stride
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c
index c96140cf47e7..a80f362d2ac1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ i915_tiling_ok(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
else
tile_width = 512;
- if (!IS_ALIGNED(stride, tile_width))
+ if (!stride || !IS_ALIGNED(stride, tile_width))
return false;
/* 965+ just needs multiples of tile width */
Not sure that I spotted this in the original review, maybe. I got thrown
off just now by the strange ending of this function in thinking
is_power_of_2(stride) is last. Perhaps the special case of gen < 4
should be an exception and return true the last statement.
if (INTEL_GEN(i915) < 4)
return is_power_of_2(stride);
return true;
Anyway,
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
