On 2/3/2023 23:29, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
I see you are inferring that a guc-id of zero can be valid.
I am guessing that might have contributed to some lost captures?
Thanks for catching this.
I'm not inferring anything. I might be implying something, though. The
patch description probably should have mentioned that change. I'll add
something in.
There is nothing special about id zero. The lower X many ids are
reserved for multi-LRC use. So you won't see zero being allocated
normally. But run a multi-LRC app/test and the first context allocated
should be id zero.
John.
Reviewed-by: Alan Previn <alan.previn.teres.alexis@xxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 17:10 -0800, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
The comparison in the search for a matching register capture node was
not the most readable. So remove two redundant terms and re-format to
keep each term on a single line, and only one term per line.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
index 710999d7189ee..87b080dd6bead 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
@@ -1627,9 +1627,8 @@ void intel_guc_capture_get_matching_node(struct intel_gt *gt,
list_for_each_entry_safe(n, ntmp, &guc->capture->outlist, link) {
if (n->eng_inst == GUC_ID_TO_ENGINE_INSTANCE(ee->engine->guc_id) &&
n->eng_class == GUC_ID_TO_ENGINE_CLASS(ee->engine->guc_id) &&
- n->guc_id && n->guc_id == ce->guc_id.id &&
- (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) && (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) ==
- (ce->lrc.lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK)) {
+ n->guc_id == ce->guc_id.id &&
+ (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) == (ce->lrc.lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK)) {
list_del(&n->link);
ee->guc_capture_node = n;
ee->guc_capture = guc->capture;
