On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-07-20 14:32:40) > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:14:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-07-20 14:07:31) > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:02:34PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > Doing this kind of global thing from the plane hooks seems a bit > > > > strange. How about just doing this directly from commit_tail() > > > > etc.? > > > > > > We want it upfront in prepare (so that it's set before any wait) or > > > somewhere around there (atomic_state setup?). cleanup was chosen for the > > > symmetry with prepare. > > > > Looks like we have intel_atomic_prepare_commit() which I guess would be > > a decent spot then. And introduce intel_atomic_cleanup_commit() to do > > the reverse? > > The only other point is I started from prepare_plane for being next to > both the reprioritisation and the add_rps_boost_after_vblank. So that's > quite nice. Ok, I guess that's quite reasonable. > > > Another question is what happens where there are parallel flips > > happening? One could undo the boost from the other AFAICS. But maybe > > we don't care enough to protect against that? > > It's a counter, so the "interactive" mode remains high until all > concurrent flips are completed. Ah. I guess the bool in the atomic state threw me off. I suppose that one is just an optimization to avoid calling the function more than once? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
