On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:38:38PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 3 June 2014 23:29, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > >> For atomic, it will be quite necessary to not need to care so much > >> about locking order. And 'state' gives us a convenient place to stash a > >> ww_ctx for any sort of update that needs to grab multiple crtc locks. > >> > >> Because we will want to eventually make locking even more fine grained > >> (giving locks to planes, connectors, etc), split out drm_modeset_lock > >> and drm_modeset_acquire_ctx to track acquired locks. > >> > >> Atomic will use this to keep track of which locks have been acquired > >> in a transaction. > >> > >> v1: original > >> v2: remove a few things not needed until atomic, for now > >> v3: update for v3 of connection_mutex patch.. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Still meh about the lock_all_crtcs helper, imo that one should die. But > > one todo you've missed from my fixup patch is to add kerneldoc for all the > > locking helpers (maybe that convinces you to inline lock_all_crtcs ;-) and > > pull it into the drm docbook template. Otherwise nothing stuck out any > > more. > > I'm happy to apply this one if we get some kerneldoc into it. > > I've applied the previous patches to drm-next, there was one conflict in i915, > but I think I fixed it up okay, f7ef3fa77fa85b3a8a15b464efd56d0314a3231c > was what it was conflicting with. Yeah, I've done the modeset_lock_all specifically because of that conflict, so looks good. Could have dropped the braces too ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
