On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:16:54 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
> index b776d2f..695a449 100644
> --- a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
> +++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
> @@ -1478,6 +1478,32 @@ drm_intel_gem_bo_wait_rendering(drm_intel_bo *bo)
> drm_intel_gem_bo_start_gtt_access(bo, 1);
> }
>
> +int drm_intel_gem_bo_wait(drm_intel_bo *bo, uint64_t *timeout_ns)
> +{
> + drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem = (drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *)
> bo->bufmgr;
> + drm_intel_bo_gem *bo_gem = (drm_intel_bo_gem *) bo;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_wait wait;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!timeout_ns)
> + return -EINVAL;
At least for the GL case, timeout of 0 ns wants to turn into
GL_TIMEOUT_EXPIRED or GL_ALREADY_SIGNALED. -EINVAL doesn't sound like
translating into either of those -- are you thinking that GL will
special case 0 ns to not call this function?
> +
> + wait.bo_handle = bo_gem->gem_handle;
> + wait.timeout_ns = *timeout_ns;
> + wait.flags = 0;
> + ret = drmIoctl(bufmgr_gem->fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_WAIT, &wait);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (wait.timeout_ns == 0) {
> + DBG("Wait timed out on buffer %d\n",
> bo_gem->gem_handle);
> + *timeout_ns = 0;
> + } else
> + *timeout_ns = wait.timeout_ns;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Do we see any consumers wanting the unslept time? GL doesn't care, and
not passing a pointer would be more convenient for the caller.
I guess GL_ALREADY_SIGNALED handling will be done using a check for
bo_busy() before calling this.
Attachment:
pgpHAgF9xKK9N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
