Rev 4358 | Go to most recent revision | Show entire file | Regard whitespace | Details | Blame | Last modification | View Log | RSS feed
| Rev 4358 | Rev 4401 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 595... | Line 595... | ||
| 595 | 595 | ||
| Line 596... | Line 596... | ||
| 596 | start += ((buf->offset + nv50->idxbuf.offset) & 3) >> (index_size >> 1); |
596 | start += ((buf->offset + nv50->idxbuf.offset) & 3) >> (index_size >> 1); |
| Line -... | Line 597... | ||
| - | 597 | ||
| - | 598 | assert(nouveau_resource_mapped_by_gpu(nv50->idxbuf.buffer)); |
|
| - | 599 | ||
| - | 600 | /* This shouldn't have to be here. The going theory is that the buffer |
|
| - | 601 | * is being filled in by PGRAPH, and it's not done yet by the time it |
|
| - | 602 | * gets submitted to PFIFO, which in turn starts immediately prefetching |
|
| - | 603 | * the not-yet-written data. Ideally this wait would only happen on |
|
| - | 604 | * pushbuf submit, but it's probably not a big performance difference. |
|
| - | 605 | */ |
|
| 597 | 606 | if (buf->fence_wr && !nouveau_fence_signalled(buf->fence_wr)) |
|
| 598 | assert(nouveau_resource_mapped_by_gpu(nv50->idxbuf.buffer)); |
607 | nouveau_fence_wait(buf->fence_wr); |
| 599 | 608 | ||
| Line 600... | Line 609... | ||
| 600 | while (instance_count--) { |
609 | while (instance_count--) { |