On Thursday 9 February 2012 20:31:18 Marek Olšák wrote: > 2012/2/9 Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnswo...@onelan.co.uk>: > > On Wednesday 8 February 2012 18:28:05 Michel Dänzer wrote: > >> On Fre, 2012-02-03 at 17:32 +0000, Simon Farnsworth wrote: > >> > --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/r600_hw_context.c > >> > +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/r600_hw_context.c > >> > @@ -1623,6 +1623,13 @@ void r600_context_emit_fence(struct > >> > + > >> > + /* Create a dummy BO so that fence_finish without a timeout > >> > can sleep waiting for completion */ + *sleep_bo = (struct > >> > r600_resource*) + > >> > pipe_buffer_create(&ctx->screen->screen, PIPE_BIND_CUSTOM, + > >> > PIPE_USAGE_STAGING, 1); + /* > >> > Add the fence as a dummy relocation. */ > >> > + r600_context_bo_reloc(ctx, *sleep_bo, RADEON_USAGE_READWRITE); > >> > >> Sorry for only thinking of this now, but what's the advantage of doing > >> this here, rather than in r600_create_fence()? Seems like that would > >> be > >> simpler and cleaner. > > > > I've done it here because this is the bit of code that deals with all > > the > > hardware-related stuff, and it already knows about writing out > > relocations. I have no particular opinion either way, though, and > > wouldn't get upset about moving it. Thoughts? > > FWIW, the "hw_context" files are there for historical reasons only. There is > nothing wrong with adding relocations and emitting commands from the other > places of the driver. Eventually, r600.h, r600_pipe.h, and > r600_hw_context_priv.h will be merged together. > OK, so when I rebase this onto master (which will be v4), I should move the sleep_bo into r600_create_fence.
Is there anything else that needs to be done before this can be considered for merging to master? -- Simon Farnsworth Software Engineer ONELAN Ltd http://www.onelan.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
