On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > This simplifies the sync code quite a bit. I don't think we'll be able > to get away with using the core fence code's seqno support, since we'll > be moving away from simple seqno comparisions with the scheduler and > preemption, but the additional code is pretty minimal anyway, and lets > us add additional debugging as needed, so it's probably fine to keep > either way. > > We still need to add support for other rings here; we ought to be able > to do that with the timeline field of the ioctl (which will include > other "rings" like the display flip queue for example). I am ambivalent about this. I don't think migrating i915_request over to use the heavyweight fence primitives is a good idea, so see little value in embedding the struct fence inside i915_request vs a small bookkeeping struct referencing i915_request. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
