On 3 June 2014 23:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> For atomic, it will be quite necessary to not need to care so much
>> about locking order. And 'state' gives us a convenient place to stash a
>> ww_ctx for any sort of update that needs to g
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:38:38PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 3 June 2014 23:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> For atomic, it will be quite necessary to not need to care so much
> >> about locking order. And 'state' gives us a conveni
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> For atomic, it will be quite necessary to not need to care so much
> about locking order. And 'state' gives us a convenient place to stash a
> ww_ctx for any sort of update that needs to grab multiple crtc locks.
>
> Because we will wan
For atomic, it will be quite necessary to not need to care so much
about locking order. And 'state' gives us a convenient place to stash a
ww_ctx for any sort of update that needs to grab multiple crtc locks.
Because we will want to eventually make locking even more fine grained
(giving locks to
