On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:45:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:54:38AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > +/** > > > + * intel_frontbuffer_flush - flush frontbuffer > > > + * @dev: DRM device > > > + * @frontbuffer_bits: frontbuffer plane tracking bits > > > + * > > > + * This function gets called every time rendering on the given planes has > > > + * completed and frontbuffer caching can be started again. Flushes will get > > > + * delayed if they're blocked by some oustanding asynchronous rendering. > > > + * > > > + * Can be called without any locks held. > > > + */ > > > +void intel_frontbuffer_flush(struct drm_device *dev, > > > + unsigned frontbuffer_bits) > > > > intel_fb_complete. > > My naming convetion was: > - intel_frontbuffer: Deals in raw frontbuffer tracking bits. > - intel_fb: Takes a gem object, assumes dev->struct_mutex is held. I've > stolen these from the intel_mark_fb_busy function. > > The main functions are flush/invalidate, all the others just add a bit of > magic (which delays) around them. Imo invalidate is definitely the right > pick if you look at fbc/psr as fancy caches, not sure about flush. Maybe > finish given our sw_finish ioctl, but not sure that's better than flush. > My thinking is: > > - invalidate the cache fully (i.e. disable it) > - flush data into the cache again (i.e. enable it again) That's also how I named it, so we agree here. I am not fond of intermixing intel_frontbuffer and intel_fb though. Certainly not having the function definitions intertwined. Maybe intel_frontbuffer and intel_frontbuffer_obj? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
