Lovely cleanup! R-b.
I think I had a reason for separating the two -- or maybe the BO cache
is just newer than the transient BO cache? -- but seeing as I haven't
the foggiest what it was, this is a lovely improvement.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:47:18PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Right now, t
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 19:21:04 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:10:47 +0100
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 11:47, Boris Brezillon
> > wrote:
> > > Right now, the transient memory allocator implements its own BO caching
> > > mechanism
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:10:47 +0100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 11:47, Boris Brezillon
> wrote:
> > Right now, the transient memory allocator implements its own BO caching
> > mechanism, which is not really needed since we already have a generic
> > BO cache. Let's
Hi Boris,
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 11:47, Boris Brezillon
wrote:
> Right now, the transient memory allocator implements its own BO caching
> mechanism, which is not really needed since we already have a generic
> BO cache. Let's simplify things a bit.
>
> [...]
>
> bool fits_in_current = (
Right now, the transient memory allocator implements its own BO caching
mechanism, which is not really needed since we already have a generic
BO cache. Let's simplify things a bit.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon
---
src/gallium/drivers/panfrost/pan_allocate.c | 80 -
src/gall
