On 03.05.2012 19:34, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
>>> wrote:
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion a
2012/5/3 Christian K?nig :
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian
> K?nig
> ?wrot
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Chr
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
?wrote:
>
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Chri
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
?wrote:
>
>
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>>> code,
>>> so I again split tha
On 03.05.2012 19:34, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian König wrote:
On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19
2012/5/3 Christian König :
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian
> König
> wrot
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian König wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Chri
On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Chri
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
wrote:
>
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>> code,
>> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>>
>> Most of the st
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König
wrote:
>
>
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
code,
so I ag
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>>> code,
>>> so I again split that
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to
> avoid
> mailing around unrelated and already reviewed pa
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to
> avoid
> mailing around unrelated and already reviewed pa
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König wrote:
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA code,
so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
Most of the stuff still works fine w
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA code,
so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to avoid
mailing around unrelated and already reviewed patches, I
On 02.05.2012 12:32, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM,wrote:
Ok so i reread stuff and the :
drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
is
2012/5/2 Christian K?nig :
> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
>>> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
>>> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
>>> the handling
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes,
So here are sa improvement, ib pool cleanup and semaphore cleanup.
Those are Christian patches rebased on top of its last 17 patchset
and on top of sa allocator change.
The idea is that the sa_bo struct is not free until associated fence
is signaled. Meanwhile the ib structure or the semaphore/fen
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
>>> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
>>> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. M
On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
>> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
>> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
>> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
>> the handling into the irq process which is something
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 12:32, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, ? ?wrote:
>
> Ok so i reread stu
2012/5/2 Christian König :
> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
>>> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
>>> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
>>> the handling
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes,
So here are sa improvement, ib pool cleanup and semaphore cleanup.
Those are Christian patches rebased on top of its last 17 patchset
and on top of sa allocator change.
The idea is that the sa_bo struct is not free until associated fence
is signaled. Meanwhile the ib structure or the semaphore/fen
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Christian König wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 12:32, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
>
> Ok so i reread stuf
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA code,
so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to avoid
mailing around unrelated and already reviewed patches, I
On 02.05.2012 12:32, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Christian König
wrote:
On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM,wrote:
Ok so i reread stuff and the :
drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
is a big NAK actually. I
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
>>> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
>>> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. M
On 02.05.2012 06:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
Ok so i reread stuff and the :
drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
the handling into the irq process which is something i am intima
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
> the handling into the irq process which is something i am intimatly
> convinced we should avoid.
>
>
Ok so i reread stuff and the :
drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
the handling into the irq process which is something i am intimatly
convinced we should avoid.
Here is the patchset up to ib pool cleanup. I have yet
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
> Ok so i reread stuff and the :
> drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
> is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
> the handling into the irq process which is something i am intimatly
> convinced we should avoid.
>
>
Ok so i reread stuff and the :
drm/radeon: add general purpose fence signaled callback
is a big NAK actually. It change the paradigm. Moving most of
the handling into the irq process which is something i am intimatly
convinced we should avoid.
Here is the patchset up to ib pool cleanup. I have yet
On 30.04.2012 18:26, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 30.04.2012 17:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> Hi Dave
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM, wrote:
> So it's pretty much the same patchset except for patch 7 (use mutex
> instead of spinlock) and 9 & 10 which correspond to previous patch 9
> split in two and the sa allocation being simplified.
>
> The patchset can be found at :
> http://people.freedesktop
So it's pretty much the same patchset except for patch 7 (use mutex
instead of spinlock) and 9 & 10 which correspond to previous patch 9
split in two and the sa allocation being simplified.
The patchset can be found at :
http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/reset/
Cheers,
Jerome Glisse
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM, wrote:
> So it's pretty much the same patchset except for patch 7 (use mutex
> instead of spinlock) and 9 & 10 which correspond to previous patch 9
> split in two and the sa allocation being simplified.
>
> The patchset can be found at :
> http://people.freedesktop
So it's pretty much the same patchset except for patch 7 (use mutex
instead of spinlock) and 9 & 10 which correspond to previous patch 9
split in two and the sa allocation being simplified.
The patchset can be found at :
http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/reset/
Cheers,
Jerome Glisse
___
2012/4/30 Christian K?nig :
> Hi Dave,
>
> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
> drm-next.
>
> Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for quite some
> time,
> but I intentional left out the debugfs related patches cause we haven't
>
On 30.04.2012 18:26, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Christian König
wrote:
On 30.04.2012 17:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Hi Dave,
if nobody has a last m
2012/4/30 Christian König :
> Hi Dave,
>
> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
> drm-next.
>
> Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for quite some
> time,
> but I intentional left out the debugfs related patches cause we haven't
>
On 30.04.2012 17:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian K?nig
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
>>> drm-next.
>>>
>>> Except for som
Hi Dave,
if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
drm-next.
Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for quite some
time,
but I intentional left out the debugfs related patches cause we haven't
finished the
discussion about them yet.
If
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 30.04.2012 17:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
Hi Dave,
if nobody has a last moment conc
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
>> drm-next.
>>
>> Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
> drm-next.
>
> Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for quite some
> time,
> but I intentional left out the debugfs relat
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> On 30.04.2012 17:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
Hi Dave,
if nobody has a last moment conc
On 30.04.2012 17:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Hi Dave,
if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
drm-next.
Except for some minor fixes they have al
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian König
> wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
>> drm-next.
>>
>> Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
> drm-next.
>
> Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for quite some
> time,
> but I intentional left out the debugfs relat
Hi Dave,
if nobody has a last moment concern please include the following patches in
drm-next.
Except for some minor fixes they have already been on the list for quite some
time,
but I intentional left out the debugfs related patches cause we haven't
finished the
discussion about them yet.
If
60 matches
Mail list logo
