On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 02:40:44PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 14:39 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 02:22:58PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 14:21 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:00:14PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > > > > - gem_set_domain(fd, fb->gem_handle, > > > > > - I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU, > > > > > I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU); > > > > > + if (!fb->is_dumb) > > > > > + gem_set_domain(fd, fb->gem_handle, > > > > > I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU, > > > > > + I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU); > > > > At the risk of opening a can-of-worms, what is the > > > > synchronisation > > > > protocol for dumb buffers? Even CPU access to a dumb needs set- > > > > domain > > > > on > > > > Intel. > > > Then Intel is broken, because the literal entire point of dumb > > > buffers > > > is that you do not require driver-specific calls to operate them. > > > > > > Map, populate, unmap, display. > > Don't forget to call dirtyfb then. > > Are you talking about frontbuffer rendering, or pageflipping between > two dumb buffers? Afaik, no one yet tracks damage on a backbuffer before a flip. But we don't constrain the tests to backbuffer as we do need to exercise frontbuffer rendering and iirc those tests all use set-domain. I don't see any PSR/FBC testing using the dumb framebuffers... Or is the dumb framebuffer purely a backbuffer + flip model? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
