On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:50:05AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> No, think you misunderstood me. I said "slightly more defensive"
> just in the sense that in case of weird hardware failures you have a
> potentially infinite loop now, where you don't really need a loop -
> probabilities strongly suggest you cannot get two upper dword wraps
> between the reads. So it is enough to read the upper dword twice,
> without the loop. Same effect, slightly more defensive in reality.
Yup, misunderstood what you wanted. If in doubt, C is much more
concise ;-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
index 45d8011..8c82316 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
@@ -425,12 +425,14 @@ u64 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
if (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 8) {
u32 upper, lower, tmp;
+ upper = I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base));
+ lower = I915_READ(RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base));
tmp = I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base));
- do {
+ if (upper != tmp) {
upper = tmp;
lower = I915_READ(RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base));
- tmp = I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base));
- } while (upper != tmp);
+ WARN_ON(I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base) != upper);
+ }
acthd = (u64)upper << 32 | lower;
} else if (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
