On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 3:32 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 25.05.21 um 17:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>> Hi Christian,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30
Am 25.05.21 um 17:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
Hi Christian,
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
This works by
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >> Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >> This works by adding the fence of t
Hi Daniel,
Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
Hi Christian,
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
We could provide an IOCTL for the BO to change the flag.
That's not the semantics we need.
But could we
Hi Christian,
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > [SNIP]
> > > We could provide an IOCTL for the BO to change the flag.
> > That's not the semantics we need.
> >
> > > But could we first figure out the semantics we wan
Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
We could provide an IOCTL for the BO to change the flag.
That's not the semantics we need.
But could we first figure out the semantics we want to use here?
Cause I'm pretty sure we don't actually need those changes at all and as
said before
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:08 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 21.05.21 um 17:16 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen
Am 21.05.21 um 17:16 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
---
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter
> > > wrote:
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter
> > wrote:
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 del
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 07:58:57AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > - msm is mildly entertaining. It also supports MSM_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT,
> > but because it doesn't use the drm/scheduler it handles fences from
> > the wrong context with a
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> - msm is mildly entertaining. It also supports MSM_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT,
> but because it doesn't use the drm/scheduler it handles fences from
> the wrong context with a synchronous dma_fence_wait. See
> submit_fence_sync() leading to ms
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear:
> >
> > "A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally
> > associated with write operations) or N sha
Am 21.05.21 um 11:09 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear:
"A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally
associated with write operations) or N shared fences (read
operations)."
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear:
>
> "A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally
> associated with write operations) or N shared fences (read
> operations)."
>
> https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/drive
Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear:
"A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally
associated with write operations) or N shared fences (read
operations)."
https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/driver-api/dma-buf.html#reservation-objects
Furthermore a review across a
16 matches
Mail list logo
