It's the default.
Also so much for "we're not going to tell the graphics people how to review their code", dma_fence is a pretty core piece of gpu driver infrastructure. And it's very much uapi relevant, including piles of corresponding userspace protocols and libraries for how to pass these around.
Would be great if habanalabs would not use this (from a quick look it's not needed at all), since open source the userspace and playing by the usual rules isn't on the table. If that's not possible (because it's actually using the uapi part of dma_fence to interact with gpu drivers) then we have exactly what everyone promised we'd want to avoid.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@intel.com Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Olof Johansson olof@lixom.net Cc: Oded Gabbay oded.gabbay@gmail.com Cc: Sumit Semwal sumit.semwal@linaro.org Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org --- drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_submission.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_submission.c b/drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_submission.c index 409276b6374d..cc3ce759b6c3 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_submission.c +++ b/drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_submission.c @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@ static const struct dma_fence_ops hl_fence_ops = { .get_driver_name = hl_fence_get_driver_name, .get_timeline_name = hl_fence_get_timeline_name, .enable_signaling = hl_fence_enable_signaling, - .wait = dma_fence_default_wait, .release = hl_fence_release };