On 12/05/2025 09:05, Christian König wrote:
On 5/9/25 17:47, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Replace open-coded helper with the subsystem one.
You probably can just send this one by itself as it good cleanup and
independent.
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Any objections that I start to push those patches to drm-misc-next or do you
want to take this one through the i915 branch?
I think it will depend on timing. If this series gets stalled, or gets
rejected, I will push this cleanup patch to i915. But if things will be
looking positive to merge more of this series, then it is much simpler
to take everything via drm-misc-next and avoid branch dependencies.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@igalia.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c | 7 +------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
index 7127e90c1a8f..991666fd9f85 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
@@ -106,11 +106,6 @@ static void fence_set_priority(struct dma_fence *fence,
rcu_read_unlock();
}
-static inline bool __dma_fence_is_chain(const struct dma_fence *fence)
-{
- return fence->ops == &dma_fence_chain_ops;
-}
-
void i915_gem_fence_wait_priority(struct dma_fence *fence,
const struct i915_sched_attr *attr)
{
@@ -126,7 +121,7 @@ void i915_gem_fence_wait_priority(struct dma_fence *fence,
for (i = 0; i < array->num_fences; i++)
fence_set_priority(array->fences[i], attr);
- } else if (__dma_fence_is_chain(fence)) {
+ } else if (dma_fence_is_chain(fence)) {
struct dma_fence *iter;
/* The chain is ordered; if we boost the last, we boost all */
--
2.48.0
