On 12/13/2011 08:36 AM, Keith Packard wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:01:33 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > >> - or remove it all and invalidate/flush unconditionally. > > Eric and I were chatting yesterday about trying this -- it seems like > we'd be able to dramatically simplify the kernel module by doing this, > and given how much flushing already occurs, I doubt we'd see any > significant performance difference, and we'd save a pile of CPU time, > which might actually improve performance. Would we want to keep domain tracking if the HW worked correctly and we didn't have to always flush. It seems like a shame to just gut the code if it actually could offer a benefit on future generations. I know Daniel has the same idea about gutting it... Ben
