forked from Minki/linux
drm/i915/guc: Do not use 0 for GuC doorbell cookie
Apparently, this value is reserved and may be interpreted as changing doorbell ownership. Even though we're not observing any side effects now, let's skip over it to be consistent with the spec. v2: Apply checkpatch (Sagar) Suggested-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20171025200020.16636-2-michal.winiarski@intel.com
This commit is contained in:
parent
f8c3dcf946
commit
21e8860ef4
@ -475,9 +475,12 @@ static void guc_ring_doorbell(struct i915_guc_client *client)
|
||||
/* pointer of current doorbell cacheline */
|
||||
db = __get_doorbell(client);
|
||||
|
||||
/* we're not expecting the doorbell cookie to change behind our back */
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* We're not expecting the doorbell cookie to change behind our back,
|
||||
* we also need to treat 0 as a reserved value.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
cookie = READ_ONCE(db->cookie);
|
||||
WARN_ON_ONCE(xchg(&db->cookie, cookie + 1) != cookie);
|
||||
WARN_ON_ONCE(xchg(&db->cookie, cookie + 1 ?: cookie + 2) != cookie);
|
||||
|
||||
/* XXX: doorbell was lost and need to acquire it again */
|
||||
GEM_BUG_ON(db->db_status != GUC_DOORBELL_ENABLED);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user