Hi John, 2016-01-14 John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>: > On 13/01/2016 19:00, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > >Hi John, > > > >2016-01-13 John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > >>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>The sync framework is now used by the i915 driver. Therefore it can be > >>moved out of staging and into the regular tree. Also, the public > >>interfaces can actually be made public and exported. > >I also have been working on de-staging the sync framework, but I've > >taken the approach of cleaning up the sync framework first. e.g., I got > >rid of sync_pt and use struct fence directly, also sync_timeline is now > >fence_timeline and its ops are gone in favor of fence_ops. My current > >work is here: > > > >https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/padovan/linux.git/log/?h=sync > > > >My current plan is clean up patches, add commits messages and document > >the changes I've made and then it should be ready for a RFC. > > > > Gustavo > Hello, > > Sounds good. I did note in my cover letter that these patches were only > being posted to let people review the i915 side of the changes on a complete > and working tree. Once we found out you were working on the de-stage the > decision was to let you get on with it and not duplicate the effort here :). > Note that patches four and five of this series are enhancements to the sync > code rather than just de-staging it. Would they still be applicable to your > new and improved version? Yes, with a small rework we can surely apply them on top of my changes. > Do you have an expected time scale for when your patches will land? I hope to send a RFC sometime next week, after that it will depend on how many comments and iterations I get from upstream. > Also, do you have any sort of overview document explaining what externally > visible changes you are making and what the implications are for other > drivers that are using the API? Not yet. But I'll write one. In short: SW_SYNC didn't change from API point of view. And I replaced sync_timeline with fence_timeline and sync_pt with fence changing the respective functions name, e.g., sync_timeline_create is now fence_timeline_create. > > Re the SW_SYNC_USER bits, we were just using that for a user land test > program. The idea was to create an timeline external to the i915 driver and > pass sync points in to i915 to be waited on and check that the i915 work > itself only happens after the test signals the timeline appropriately. If > this interface is going away, is there a plan to replace it with any other > mechanism for doing similar? Or do we have to create some kind of dummy > kernel module in order to get a testing timeline? I've moved it to debugfs. You just need to point your test program to <debugfs>/sync/sw_sync and everything will continue to work. Gustavo _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
