Does this mean that radeonsi shouldn't use amdgpu_cs_syncobj_wait on older DRM?
Does it make sense to have separate has_syncobj and has_syncobj_wait flags? Marek On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Bas Nieuwenhuizen <[email protected]> wrote: > First amdgpu bump after inclusion was 20 (which was done for local BOs). > --- > src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.c | 1 + > src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.c b/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.c > index 0576dd369cf..c042bb229ce 100644 > --- a/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.c > +++ b/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.c > @@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ bool ac_query_gpu_info(int fd, amdgpu_device_handle dev, > vce.available_rings ? vce_version : 0; > info->has_userptr = true; > info->has_syncobj = has_syncobj(fd); > + info->has_syncobj_wait = info->has_syncobj && info->drm_minor >= 20; > info->has_sync_file = info->has_syncobj && info->drm_minor >= 21; > info->has_ctx_priority = info->drm_minor >= 22; > info->num_render_backends = amdinfo->rb_pipes; > diff --git a/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.h b/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.h > index 5b9e51658b0..04e17f91c59 100644 > --- a/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.h > +++ b/src/amd/common/ac_gpu_info.h > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct radeon_info { > uint32_t drm_patchlevel; > bool has_userptr; > bool has_syncobj; > + bool has_syncobj_wait; > bool has_sync_file; > bool has_ctx_priority; > > -- > 2.15.1 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
