[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426162526.GT4329@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:25:26 +0300
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/8] drm/fence: add in-fences support
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:14:22AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2016-04-26 Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:33:25PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
> > >
> > > There is now a new property called FENCE_FD attached to every plane
> > > state that receives the sync_file fd from userspace via the atomic commit
> > > IOCTL.
> >
> > I still don't like this property abuse. Also with atomic, all passed
> > fences must be waited upon before anything is done, so attaching them
> > to planes seems like it might just give people the wrong idea.
>
> I'm actually fine with this as property, but another solutions is use
> an array of {plane, fence_fd} and extend drm_atomic_ioctl args just like
> we have done for out fences.
Why do you want to associate these with planes?
> However the FENCE_FD property is easier to
> handle in userspace than the array. Any other idea?
>
> Gustavo
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
Powered by blists - more mailing lists