On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:36:36PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:14:22AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > 2016-04-26 Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:33:25PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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. However the FENCE_FD property is easier to
> > handle in userspace than the array. Any other idea?
>
> Imo FENCE_FD is perfectly fine. But what's the concern around giving
> people the wrong idea with attaching fences to planes? For nonblocking
> commits we need to store them somewhere for the worker, drm_plane_state
> seems like an as good place as any other.
It gives the impression that each plane might flip as soon as its fence
signals.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
