On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 09:32:34AM +0000, Daniel, Thomas wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > > Of Daniel Vetter > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:29 PM > > To: Harrison, John C > > Cc: Intel-GFX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Replace seqno values with request > > structures > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:18:51PM +0000, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > There is a general feeling that it is better to move away from using a > > > simple integer 'seqno' value to track batch buffer completion. > > > Instead, the request structure should be used. That provides for much > > > more flexibility going forwards. Especially which things like a GPU > > > scheduler (which can re-order batch buffers and hence seqnos after > > > submission to the hardware), Android sync points and other such > > > features which potentially make seqno usage more and more complex. > > > > > > This patch set does the work of converting most of the driver to use > > > request structures in preference to seqno values. The only place left > > > that still uses seqnos is the semaphore code. It was decided to leave > > > that alone for the time being as the semaphores are hardware based and > > > the hardware only understands seqno values. > > > > > > v2: Rebased to newer nightly tree which significantly changed some of > > > the display MMIO flip code (including making __wait_request public and > > > renaming it). > > > > > > [Patches against drm-intel-nightly tree fetched 13/11/2014] > > > > > > John Harrison (28): > > > drm/i915: Ensure OLS & PLR are always in sync > > > drm/i915: Add reference count to request structure > > > drm/i915: Add helper functions to aid seqno -> request transition > > > drm/i915: Replace last_[rwf]_seqno with last_[rwf]_req > > > drm/i915: Convert i915_gem_ring_throttle to use requests > > > drm/i915: Ensure requests stick around during waits > > > drm/i915: Remove 'outstanding_lazy_seqno' > > > drm/i915: Make 'i915_gem_check_olr' actually check by request not seqno > > > drm/i915: Convert 'last_flip_req' to be a request not a seqno > > > drm/i915: Convert i915_wait_seqno to i915_wait_request > > > drm/i915: Add IRQ friendly request deference facility > > > drm/i915: Convert mmio_flip::seqno to struct request > > > drm/i915: Convert __wait_seqno() to __wait_request() > > > drm/i915: Remove obsolete seqno parameter from 'i915_add_request' > > > drm/i915: Convert 'flip_queued_seqno' into 'flip_queued_request' > > > drm/i915: Convert trace functions from seqno to request > > > drm/i915: Convert 'trace_irq' to use requests rather than seqnos > > > drm/i915: Convert 'ring_idle()' to use requests not seqnos > > > drm/i915: Connect requests to rings at creation not submission > > > drm/i915: Convert 'i915_seqno_passed' calls into > > 'i915_gem_request_completed' > > > drm/i915: Remove the now redundant 'obj->ring' > > > drm/i915: Cache request completion status > > > drm/i915: Zero fill the request structure > > > drm/i915: Spinlock protection for request list > > > drm/i915: Interrupt driven request completion > > > drm/i915: Remove obsolete parameter to > > i915_gem_request_completed() > > > drm/i915: Add unique id to the request structure for debugging > > > drm/i915: Additional request structure tracing > > > > Erhm this stuff is blocking refactoring work since I don't want to wreak major > > havoc with the codebase to avoid rebase hell for you. That means reviewing > > and merging early, even if the tail of the patch series isn't 100% clear yet. > > > > Imo everything past patch 21 is fairly optional icing on the cake here. > > And if there early patches are non-controversial then I'd like them to pull in > > even if there's some detail missing in a patch in the middle. > > > > But I haven't seen r-b tags anywhere really :( > Well there is some review discussion going on, but my remaining gripe > about a double init for a new list isn't a showstopper. So in the > interests of unblocking other work I will give my r-b to this v2 > patchset. > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Daniel <Thomas.Daniel@xxxxxxxxx> Ok, I've tried to vacuum this up but it conflicts. And this kind of large-scale refactoring isn't really the stuff I feel safe to fix up while applying. So can you please rebase this (perhaps together with Thomas just to make sure there's not last minute screwup and the r-b is still valid)? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
