[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGArBc37zOwsTXDEJrN+OdXXWnjSUWiKVDCmLAY4uDGYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:40:10 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>,
Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <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 Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > - implicit fences also needs one fence per plane/fb, so it will be good to
>> > match with that.
>>
>> We would actually need a fence per object rather than per fb.
>
> I guess you could overcome this by automagically creating a merged fence
> for a multi-obj fb?
Yeah, and the android hwc does this for you already. You get passed a
surface (or whatever it's called exactly) plus a fence, and the
surface contains the gralloc/native buffer thing, which would contain
multiple dma-buf handles if your hw does planar stuff that way.
I think everyone else who wants explicit fencing will go with the same
or similar model, so it's just about implicit fencing. And there we
can easily construct the fence_collection from a drm_framebuffer
ourselves with a small helper in each driver (or shared one in cma,
although cma doesn't yet grok reserverations/implicitly attached
fences).
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists