Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-04-27 Thread Hogander, Jouni
On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 14:34 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:09:55PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > > On 2023-03-09 12:04, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > > > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 22:58 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten L

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-09 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:09:55PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > On 2023-03-09 12:04, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 22:58 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>> On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-09 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
On 2023-03-09 12:04, Hogander, Jouni wrote: On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 22:58 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: Hey, On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: As a fallback if w

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-09 Thread Hogander, Jouni
On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 22:58 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > Hey, > > > > On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: > > > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > > As a fallback if we decide not to merge th

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-08 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 03:29:45PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Hey, > > > On 2023-03-08 14:36, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> On 2023-03-06 21:58, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten L

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-08 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Hey, On 2023-03-08 14:36, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: On 2023-03-06 21:58, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: Hey, On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: On Mon, 2023-03-06 at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-08 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > On 2023-03-06 21:58, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Hey, > >> > >> On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankh

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-08 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
On 2023-03-06 21:58, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: Hey, On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow i915

Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-06 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Hey, > > On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow > >> i915 to keep its own implementatio

Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-06 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Hey, On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow i915 to keep its own implementation, and do the right thing in Xe. The frontbuffer tracking for Xe is still done per-

Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-06 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:23:08PM +, Souza, Jose wrote: > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow > > i915 to keep its own implementation, and do the right thing in Xe. > > > > The frontbuffer trac

Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-06 Thread Souza, Jose
On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow > i915 to keep its own implementation, and do the right thing in Xe. > > The frontbuffer tracking for Xe is still done per-fb, while i915 can > keep doing the weird

[PATCH] drm/xe/display: Do not use i915 frontbuffer tracking implementation

2023-03-06 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow i915 to keep its own implementation, and do the right thing in Xe. The frontbuffer tracking for Xe is still done per-fb, while i915 can keep doing the weird intel_frontbuffer + i915_active thing without blocking Xe. Signed-of