On 14 March 2017 at 13:30, zhoucm1 <david1.zhou at amd.com> wrote: > > > On 2017å¹´03æ??14æ?¥ 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 <david1.zhou at amd.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send >>> out >>> our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? >> >> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of >> direct review. >> >> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he >> thinks this should >> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, >> so I just adapted >> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd >> specific code >> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as >> an rfc, as I want >> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may >> end up going >> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad >> idea, so far it >> doesn't look like one. >> >> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal >> interfaces, >> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in >> there I re >> wrote that as well. > > Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this > implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could > need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is unfortunate, but the more internal development done, the more this will happen, especially in areas where you might interact with the kernel. I'd suggest trying to develop stuff in the open much earlier (don't start anything in-house). Now that we have an open vulkan driver it might be that most features the internal vulkan driver requires will eventually be wanted by us, Dave.
