On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:18:54 +0000 Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:07:09 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:56:07 +0000 > > Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:19:13 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > > > wrote: > > > > * For the display plane, we want to be in the GTT but out of any > > > > write > > > > - * domains. So in many ways this looks like set_to_gtt_domain() > > > > apart from the > > > > - * ability to pipeline the waits, pinning and any additional > > > > subtleties > > > > - * that may differentiate the display plane from ordinary buffers. > > > > + * domains. So in many ways this looks like set_to_gtt_domain(). > > > ...apart from the whole pinning and pipelining. It looks less like > > > set-to-gtt-domain over time. > > > > > > Not an improvement. I'll be the first to admit that it is not a great > > > comment, but at least it does try to capture why we don't just treat > > > the display plane as GTT. A better comment would explain our concept > > > of display plane and pipelining. > > > > Separate patch though, don't you think? And it is now pipe-lining the > > waits, so I'm confused why you don't think it's an improvement. > > Right. So how does removing the hint of why pin-to-display is different > from set-to-gtt when it now performs said function help improve the > comment? I completely agree that changing that comment is outside of the > scope of this patch. > -Chris > Can you volunteer a better description? I'll undo the comment change in my patch #2 and use whatever you come up with. If not, I'll get to this when I get to it.
