Op 09-02-17 om 14:54 schreef Daniel Stone: > Hey, > > On 9 February 2017 at 12:49, Maarten Lankhorst > <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Op 02-02-17 om 17:26 schreef Daniel Stone: >>> On 2 February 2017 at 07:41, Maarten Lankhorst >>> <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Flip the switch!! >>> Not until we have the multi-CRTC event support please. :\ I don't want >>> to have divergent event paths for atomic-but-useless-events. >>> >>> I've been frantically typing up support for this in Weston (actual >>> proper atomic modesetting, which is difficult when you have fiercely >>> independent per-output repaint loops, but seems ~mostly done but for >>> typing), which I'd hoped to have done a week or two ago but got >>> derailed due to being sick. It's coming just as quickly as I can type >>> it tho. >> The patch for this has been shot down before, due to lack of userspace, >> but here's a slightly earlier version. >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7025111/ >> >> I guess it's less important now that we support out-fences, which provides >> a nicer way of waiting for completion. >> >> But since this is a problem with atomic core, not i915, do you have any >> objections specifically against this patch? > Yeah, it's a pretty good point; we can merge this with a cap so > userspace can probe whether or not things are usable. There are a few > other drivers which already expose atomic by default regardless; it > was less of a problem for them since they're far less likely to be > used with multiple outputs, but that's not really a fair reason to > penalise you guys ... > > Go for it. > > Cheers, > Daniel Pushed, thanks! _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
