On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Op 25-04-16 om 11:35 schreef Daniel Vetter: >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Maarten Lankhorst >> <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> async_page_flip is a unrelated flag and should not be used for >>> testing support. It's up to the drivers to fail if they don't >>> support async commit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Once more (summary of our irc discussion): >> >> - DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_ASYNC = flipping with tearing, i.e. not vblank >> synced. Gives you lower latency and unrestricted rendering, aka >> benchmark mode. Needs special hw support and on intel only supported >> on the primary plane. I think a better way to almost get all the >> benefits of async by simply implementing a queue of flips that all get >> collapsed to the next vblank. >> >> - async atomic commit = non-blocking ioctl. >> >> Two entirely orthogonal things (you could do blocking atomic commit >> with async flip, but doesn't make much sense). >> >> Maybe instead we need a better documentation for the FLIP_ASYNC flag? >> > yeah it's confusing, especially with atomic async commit. Maybe rename to nonblocking commit? Well uabi renaming train left the station, but internally we can definitely do that. s/drm_atomic_async_commit/drm_atomic_nonblocking_commit/ plus s/async/nonblocking/ in the driver's ->atomic_commit hooks sounds like a very fine idea. Volunteered? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
