On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:28:40AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Maybe, or maybe we want to turn the interrupt on in that case? That's > > what the old ioctl does. > > That's what I suggested in my reply to Daniel's review. Even if we add > the accurate function, we'll still need the interrupt-enable case as a > fallback for drivers which don't support the accurate path, right? TBH I didn't even consider that case, but yeah makes sense. Otherwise the counter won't start to tick and the result of the query is pretty much useless. I was mostly thinking of the 'seq = query(); wait(seq + n);' pattern where we can avoid doing the full update more than once if we enable the interrupt already during the query. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
