Now that we require 2.6.39, there's no need to also check for 2.6.29.
Calling drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_enable_fenced_relocs() without checking
should be safe, as it simply sets a flag.
This does remove the check for zero fences available, but that doesn't
seem worth checking.
Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
---
src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
index eb451ba..58496e2 100644
--- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
+++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
@@ -989,7 +989,6 @@ static bool
intel_init_bufmgr(struct intel_screen *intelScreen)
{
__DRIscreen *spriv = intelScreen->driScrnPriv;
- int num_fences = 0;
intelScreen->no_hw = getenv("INTEL_NO_HW") != NULL;
@@ -1000,12 +999,6 @@ intel_init_bufmgr(struct intel_screen *intelScreen)
return false;
}
- if (!intel_get_param(spriv, I915_PARAM_NUM_FENCES_AVAIL, &num_fences) ||
- num_fences == 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "[%s: %u] Kernel 2.6.29 required.\n", __func__,
__LINE__);
- return false;
- }
-
drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_enable_fenced_relocs(intelScreen->bufmgr);
if (!intel_get_boolean(spriv, I915_PARAM_HAS_RELAXED_DELTA)) {
--
1.8.2
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
