On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 05:47:26PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:50:29PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:50:01AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > We have two once very similar functions, i915_gpu_idle() and
> > > i915_gem_idle(). The former is us
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:50:29PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:50:01AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > We have two once very similar functions, i915_gpu_idle() and
> > i915_gem_idle(). The former is used as the lower level operation to
> > flush work on the GPU, whereas
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:50:01AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We have two once very similar functions, i915_gpu_idle() and
> i915_gem_idle(). The former is used as the lower level operation to
> flush work on the GPU, whereas the latter is the high level interface to
> flush the GEM bookkeeping i
We have two once very similar functions, i915_gpu_idle() and
i915_gem_idle(). The former is used as the lower level operation to
flush work on the GPU, whereas the latter is the high level interface to
flush the GEM bookkeeping in addition to flushing the GPU. As such
i915_gem_idle() also clears ou
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:22:55PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> >
> > void
> > @@ -4711,11 +4707,9 @@ i915_gem_lastclose(struct drm_device *dev)
> > if (drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
> > return;
> >
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> void
> @@ -4711,11 +4707,9 @@ i915_gem_lastclose(struct drm_device *dev)
> if (drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
> return;
>
> - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> - ret = i915_gem_idle(dev);
>
We have two once very similar functions, i915_gpu_idle() and
i915_gem_idle(). The former is used as the lower level operation to
flush work on the GPU, whereas the latter is the high level interface to
flush the GEM bookkeeping in addition to flushing the GPU. As such
i915_gem_idle() also clears ou
