On 2017å¹´05æ??12æ?¥ 12:17, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 12 May 2017 at 13:34, zhoucm1 <david1.zhou at amd.com> wrote: >> 1. generally, functions in amdgpu_cs.c should be with amdgpu_cs_ as prefix. > Okay I've fixed this and previous patch up locally. > >> 2. If I'm not wrong to your proposal, SYNCOBJ_IN is to semaphore wait while >> SYNCOBJ_OUT is to semaphore signal. SYNCOBJ_IN/OUT both are based on command >> submission ioctl, that means user space must generate CS when using >> semaphore? but with my understand, they should not be dependent with that, >> they can be used independently, right? > Yes in is WAIT and out is signal, however OUT could also be used to > write a syncobj as a fence if needed, hence why I moved away from > semaphore naming. > > The only place I can see them being used independently is a possible > signal operation after present, due not being able to pass the > semaphores over dri3 yet. I think I've said this before and Christian > has confirmed that doing anything with semaphores not via the command > submission ioctl is going to be messy as they have to queue jobs in > the scheduler, so if we need to tune the command submission ioctl to > take empty CS or add a flag to just do semaphore operations we should > do so in the future when we have a clear use case for it (and we see > the need to optimise for it). I see. +David Mao and Jacob to aware, they are expert of Vulkan, if they have no concern, It's ok. Regards, David Zhou > > Dave.
