Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-11-13 15:19:28) > On 10/11/17 21:00, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-11-10 19:08:45) > >> @@ -3528,7 +3502,7 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > >> spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->perf.oa.oa_buffer.ptr_lock); > >> > >> oa_sample_rate_hard_limit = > >> - dev_priv->perf.oa.timestamp_frequency / 2; > >> + INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->cs_timestamp_frequency / 2; > > 32-bit builds may complain, as this is ostensibly now a 64b division. > > Right? > > -Chris > > > Well, we already store cs_timestamp_frequency in the getparam value. > The assumption is that we'll stay well below the INT_MAX. > So that should be fine. Do you want to risk kbuild complaining? :) > The following didn't raise a warning on the division with > gcc7.2.0/clang3.8.1 -m32 -Wall -Wextra : You have to also use -standalone to avoid the libgcc fixups, iirc. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
