On 10/1/19 17:21, Liu, Leo wrote:
OK. So, maybe we can add a comment pointing that out?
>>> That could be better.
>>>
>> Great. I'm glad it's not a bug. I'll write a patch for that so other
>> people don't waste time taking a look.
>
> Thanks, just sent two patches to add comment, and lon
On 2019-10-01 5:57 p.m., Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> On 10/1/19 16:46, Liu, Leo wrote:
>
> + ring->sched.ready = true;
This is redundant. all the sched->ready is initialized as true, please
refer to drm_sched_init()
>>> I see... so in the following commit 1b61de45dfaf
On 10/1/19 16:46, Liu, Leo wrote:
+ ring->sched.ready = true;
>>> This is redundant. all the sched->ready is initialized as true, please
>>> refer to drm_sched_init()
>>>
>> I see... so in the following commit 1b61de45dfaf ("drm/amdgpu: add initial
>> VCN2.0 support (v2)")
>> that
Hi,
On 10/1/19 16:29, Liu, Leo wrote:
>
> On 2019-10-01 1:16 p.m., Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Notice that there is a *continue* statement in the middle of the
>> for loop and that prevents the code below from ever being reached:
>>
>> r = amdgpu_ring_test_ring(ring);
>> if (r) {
>>
On 2019-10-01 5:43 p.m., Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/1/19 16:29, Liu, Leo wrote:
>> On 2019-10-01 1:16 p.m., Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> Notice that there is a *continue* statement in the middle of the
>>> for loop and that prevents the code below from ever being reached:
>>>
>>>
On 2019-10-01 1:16 p.m., Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Notice that there is a *continue* statement in the middle of the
> for loop and that prevents the code below from ever being reached:
>
> r = amdgpu_ring_test_ring(ring);
> if (r) {
> ring->sched.ready = false;
>
Notice that there is a *continue* statement in the middle of the
for loop and that prevents the code below from ever being reached:
r = amdgpu_ring_test_ring(ring);
if (r) {
ring->sched.ready = false;
goto done;
}
Fix this by removing the co
