Alright then. Dave, if you are reading this, feel free not to include the two patches I sent you in the next pull request. Marek On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Marek, > > The problem is that the patch adds a lot of complicated code where it's not > needed, and I don't want to end up reverting that code and re-implementing > the new Radeon gem ioctl by myself. > > Having a list of two fence objects and waiting for either of them shouldn't > be that complicated to implement, in particular when it's done in a > driver-specific way and you have the benefit of assuming that they are > ordered. > > Since the new functionality is a performance improvement, If time is an > issue, I suggest we back this change out and go for the next merge window. > > /Thomas > > > On 10/24/2011 07:10 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> I have made no progress so far due to lack of time. >> >> Would you mind if I fixed the most important things first, which are: >> - sync objects are not ordered, (A) >> - every sync object must have its corresponding sync_obj_arg, (B) >> and if I fixed (C) some time later. >> >> I planned on moving the two sync objects from ttm into radeon and not >> using ttm_bo_wait from radeon (i.e. pretty much reimplementing what it >> does), but it looks more complicated to me than I had originally >> thought. >> >> Marek >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Hellstrom<thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Marek, >>> Any progress on this. The merge window is about to open soon I guess and >>> we >>> need a fix by then. >>> >>> /Thomas >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
