Marek, The problem is that the patch adds a lot of complicated code where it's not needed, and I don't want to end up reverting that code and re-implementing the new Radeon gem ioctl by myself.
Having a list of two fence objects and waiting for either of them shouldn't be that complicated to implement, in particular when it's done in a driver-specific way and you have the benefit of assuming that they are ordered. Since the new functionality is a performance improvement, If time is an issue, I suggest we back this change out and go for the next merge window. /Thomas On 10/24/2011 07:10 PM, Marek Ol??k wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I have made no progress so far due to lack of time. > > Would you mind if I fixed the most important things first, which are: > - sync objects are not ordered, (A) > - every sync object must have its corresponding sync_obj_arg, (B) > and if I fixed (C) some time later. > > I planned on moving the two sync objects from ttm into radeon and not > using ttm_bo_wait from radeon (i.e. pretty much reimplementing what it > does), but it looks more complicated to me than I had originally > thought. > > Marek > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Hellstrom<thomas at shipmail.org> > wrote: > >> Marek, >> Any progress on this. The merge window is about to open soon I guess and we >> need a fix by then. >> >> /Thomas >>
