Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/etnaviv: submit support for in-fences

From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux+etnaviv@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	etnaviv@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/etnaviv: submit support for in-fences
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:55:37 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170317135537.GB17877@joana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGucjUV40Aasp71X5ZHv7xnOAXs6THtqpg044dcgu6_Bzw@mail.gmail.com>

2017-03-16 Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h
> >> index 2584c1cca42f6..e9c388a1d8ebe 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h
> >> @@ -154,6 +154,10 @@ struct drm_etnaviv_gem_submit_bo {
> >>   * one or more cmdstream buffers.  This allows for conditional execution
> >>   * (context-restore), and IB buffers needed for per tile/bin draw cmds.
> >>   */
> >> +#define ETNA_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT         0x0001
> >> +#define ETNA_SUBMIT_FENCE_FD_IN         0x0002
> >
> > ETNA_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT and ETNA_SUBMIT_FENCE_FD_IN are the same, when
> > you send and fence_fd to the kernel you are requesting on explicit sync
> > thus I think the ETNA_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT can be dropped and
> > ETNA_SUBMIT_FENCE_FD_IN would be the one to look at.
> 
> jfwiw, I kept separate no-implicit and fence-fd-in flags in msm mostly
> because I couldn't think of a good backwards-compatible way to add it
> later if needed.  Currently userspace sets both flags together, and
> possibly always will.  But keeping separate flags seemed like a good
> idea for future-proofing..

Fair enough. Let's do the same for etnaviv then.

Gustavo
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel