[PATCH v2 01/12] drm/i915/guc: Do not use 0 for GuC doorbell cookie

["Michał Winiarski" <michal.winiarski@intel.com>]

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>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index 07289a4b5bfa..0b61bf18c3f4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -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);
-- 
2.13.6

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx