On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:41:48AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > This updates my old patch for this, but w/o fixing the locking issue > Ville mentioned. In looking at it, it seems like the sync point should > be at a higher level, maybe at the level of the atomic mode setting async > serialization points? Another possibility would be to make it a lazy > init type function, sprinkled about but only running once when we first > need it. > > Any thoughts from anyone? I don't think I can just do a lock drop here, > since other threads may jump in and mess with underlying state. That > shouldn't affect the eDP state we fill out, but may affect the state the > caller depended on in the first place... Also, has boot-time actually increased or did we simply push it somewhere we don't measure the delay anymore? After all right afterwards we'll do the fbcon setup, and that will synchronize everything again. And on modern systems without fbcon I expect userspace to go around and do a probe, which again would force synchronization pretty quickly ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
