On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:42PM +0000, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> @@ -2767,8 +2757,7 @@ i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
> struct drm_i915_gem_object,
> ring_list);
>
> - if (!i915_seqno_passed(seqno,
> - i915_gem_request_get_seqno(obj->last_read_req)))
> + if (!i915_gem_request_completed(obj->last_read_req, true))
> break;
>
> i915_gem_object_move_to_inactive(obj);
> @@ -2783,7 +2772,7 @@ i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
> struct drm_i915_gem_request,
> list);
>
> - if (!i915_seqno_passed(seqno, request->seqno))
> + if (!i915_gem_request_completed(request, true))
> break;
>
> trace_i915_gem_request_retire(request);
> @@ -2810,8 +2799,7 @@ i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
> }
>
> if (unlikely(ring->trace_irq_req &&
> - i915_seqno_passed(seqno,
> - i915_gem_request_get_seqno(ring->trace_irq_req)))) {
> + i915_gem_request_completed(ring->trace_irq_req, true))) {
I've had to drop this hunk since I've dropped the preceeding patch too.
And a little fumbling to directly call ring->get_seqno.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
