On ti, 2017-05-30 at 17:19 -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>
> On 30/05/17 17:05, Michel Thierry wrote:
> >
> > We are passing parameters in the wrong order to find next zero bit, and
> > when it doesn't find anything it returns size (offset in the code), which
> > is always zero.
> >
> > For reference the function is defined as:
> > find_next_bit( *addr, size, offset )
> >
> > The incorrect parameter order was added by commit abddffdf3620e
> > ("drm/i915/guc: Sanitize GuC client initialization"). Luckily, currently
> > we only use a single guc client and a single doorbell, which happens to be
> > zero; therefore it isn't necessary to backport this fix (which would be for
> > v4.12).
Whoops, a good catch.
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
