On 21/11/14 20:27, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:01:54PM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote: >> On 20/11/14 08:45, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> We need to do that every time we resume the rings, not just at load. >>> I've overlooked this in my untangling of the ring init code. >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> another thing that needs untangling in the general maze of init code is >> the initialisation of the active and request lists -- Thomas Daniel's >> complaint about 11/28 of the s/seqno/request/ patchset was essentially >> because John was adding more lists that appear to be redundantly >> initialised in multiple places. Please see my followup at >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-November/055856.html >> >> As it looks like you're getting rid of intel_render_ring_init_dri(), if >> we could also resolve whether init_ring_lists() is also now redundant, >> that would mean there were no duplicated list initialisations :) > > Actually I wanted to feature my little series here in your thread as one > step closer to untangling this stuff too, so ... care to review (except > for the one patch that is dropped already)? > > Wrt the lists I think we should first untangle the execlit/request story, > since I expect that a few of them need to be moved to different structs. > After that it should be a bit clearer what needs to be moved where. And > then there's also the golden context and render wa init code which also > needs to be shuffled a bit (similar to this series). > -Daniel Right, this patch looks perfectly sensible :) Reviewed-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
