On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 04:01:12PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:34:16PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:25:27PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Would it be possible for writing timing requirement tests for individual > > updates of planes on the same CRTC? E.g. making sure that legacy cursor > > doesn't block pageflips and vice versa. Also extending that to > > independent updates of primary vs sprite planes? > > I guess all that should be doable. > > I was also thinking we should at least have some kind of basic > performance benchmark for atomic ioctls. Eg. do TEST_ONLY ioctls > with different sets of properties and make sure we don't totally > suck. Would it fit into kms_flip? For starters, I'm going to try and replicate the current cursor bogosity inside ./kms_cursor_legacy. Biggest challenge is defining pass/fail criteria. :| -chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
