2015-01-30 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 03:57:53PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 30 January 2015 at 14:30, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2015-01-30 Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> We will lose unfinished prior events by this change. That's why we use > > >> linked list. > > > > > > I think you are right, but I was using exynos_crtc->event to do exactly the > > > same as exynos_crtc->pending_flip. So we were losing a event in > > > exynos_drm_crtc_dpms() before too. I change this patch to have a page_flip > > > list on the crtc. > > > > The usual approach in other drivers is to return -EBUSY when there is > > already an async pageflip pending. This definitely makes sense to me, > > as I don't see the point of submitting pageflips faster than the > > hardware can actually render, and pretending to the application that > > they were actually shown. > > Yes, right now drm doesn't really support anything like a pageflip queue. > Same for atomic really. Even the async pageflip mode works like it, it > just ends up flipping faster. > > Long-term we want a flip queue where subsequent flips can be folded > together on the next vblank. That makes benchmark-mode games happy, > without resulting in tearing like async flips and still resulting in the > lowest possible latency (since the kernel we just commit the flips for > which all the buffers are ready and not stall). Yeah, that makes sense. I'll just add a check for -EBUSY and send a v2. Gustavo _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
