On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 10:07 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 16-02-18 om 20:27 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran: > > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 08:55 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> Quoting Dhinakaran Pandiyan (2018-02-16 04:33:21) > >>> Preparing a framebuffer should not require a flush. _post_plane_update() > >>> takes care of flushing when a flip is scheduled, this should be > >>> sufficient for PSR and FBC. > >> Makes sense. > >> > > I also think this might speed up the flips a bit by avoiding flushes. > > > >>> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Also > >> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> to validate the flow through atomic. > >> -Chris > >> > Page flips used to do intel_frontbuffer_flip_prepare here, followed by intel_frontbuffer_flip_complete. I think it would make sense to change the patch to do that? > I have no context why it was removed, I'll have to understand that change and get back to you. > > Then again, seems like frontbuffer tracking should be done per crtc.. > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
