From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: make CRTC enable/disable asynchronous Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:39:40 -0800 Message-ID: <20140305153940.2bb00a2c@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1394059711-7910-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <1394059711-7910-2-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <1394062154.4236.8.camel@ideak-mobl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from oproxy19-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy19-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.200.33]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DCD8FA85F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:39:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1394062154.4236.8.camel@ideak-mobl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: imre.deak@intel.com Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:29:14 +0200 Imre Deak wrote: > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 14:48 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > This lets us return to userspace more quickly and should improve init > > and suspend/resume times as well, allowing us to return to userspace > > sooner. > > IMHO this is a good move towards a full command queue based solution for > kms commands, where eventually we have to think less of concurrency. > That is if we can queue all the other kms commands too (flip, > set_plane). But I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. > > Btw, why do you have a separate disable and enable queue? As opposed to a dedicated work queue for both combined? I had a separate queue in an earlier patch, but dropped it while debugging some other stuff. We should bring it back to ensure ordering. That would remove the need for a few of the syncs, and would also let us queue a check at the appropriate time on the same queue. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center