[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5731FFA8.8040304@collabora.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:35:04 -0400
From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
To: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
airlied@...ux.ie, aniel.vetter@...ll.ch, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, julia.lawall@...6.fr,
alexander.deucher@....com, daniels@...labora.com,
derekf@....samsung.com, varadgautam@...il.com
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/vc4: Return -EBUSY if there's already a pending
flip event.
On 2016-05-03 03:22 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> robert.foss@...labora.com writes:
>
>> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
>>
>> As per the documentation in drm_crtc.h, atomic_commit should return
>> -EBUSY if an asycnhronous update is requested and there is an earlier
>> update pending.
>>
>> Note: docs cited here are drm_crtc.h, and the whole quote is:
>>
>> * - -EBUSY, if an asynchronous updated is requested and there is
>> * an earlier updated pending. Drivers are allowed to support a queue
>> * of outstanding updates, but currently no driver supports that.
>> * Note that drivers must wait for preceding updates to complete if a
>> * synchronous update is requested, they are not allowed to fail the
>> * commit in that case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
>
> This looks good to me. Let's give it a few days on the list for any
> other KMS folks to catch anything.
>
I haven't seen any further feedback regarding this patch.
Does anyone have objections to it being merged?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists