On 03/19/2014 09:54 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
index 7a01911c16f8..a6ceb2c6f36d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
@@ -417,13 +417,19 @@ static void ring_write_tail(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
I915_WRITE_TAIL(ring, value);
}
-u32 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
+u64 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
{
drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private;
- u32 acthd_reg = INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4 ?
- RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base) : ACTHD;
- return I915_READ(acthd_reg);
+ u32 reg = (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4 ?
+ RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base) : ACTHD);
+ u64 acthd;
+
+ acthd = I915_READ(reg);
+ if (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 8)
+ acthd |= (u64)I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base)) << 32;
+
+ return acthd;
}
Can it happen, and does anyone care, for a low dword to wrap so instead
of say, 0x00010000, this function falsely returns 0x0001ffff ?
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
