From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drm/i915: clarify semaphore-ring
 interaction
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:03:05 -0700
Message-ID: <20120521140305.7421ef30@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1337521955-13626-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1337528738-16632-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1337589849_155240@CP5-2952>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB239E7A7
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 21 May 2012 14:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1337589849_155240@CP5-2952>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:44:02 +0100
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:45:38 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > After Daniel split out this code, I think this makes more sense, and
> > looks nicer. Also added some comments to help the situation.
> > 
> > v2: Make signal_mbox be all rings for symmetric-ness.
> > v3: submitted the wrong version of the patch before.
> >   v2 had an issue with odd number of rings. The fix is to always emit an
> >   even number of instructions to the ring with mbox updates.
> > v4: I suck. The code should send out mbox updates for NUM_RINGS-1 *
> >   number of commands. Instead of NUM_RINGS * number of commands-1.
> > -ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, round_up((I915_NUM_RINGS) * 3, 2) + 4);
> > +ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, round_up((I915_NUM_RINGS-1) * 4, 2) + 4);
> 
> I'm honestly less enthralled about v4. I'd rather see that as a separate
> preparatory patch so that it is put into context.
> -Chris
> 

I can do that. Are you okay with the idea otherwise? This is really all
prep work for some HSW patches anyway.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center