Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores

From: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
To: zhoucm1 <david1.zhou-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
	"Christian König"
	<deathsimple-ANTagKRnAhcb1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel-/w4YWyX8dFk@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	amd-gfx mailing list
	<amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
	dri-devel
	<dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
	"Mao, David" <David.Mao-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:45:17 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8dea3303-480d-c29a-22ec-42adf3dab4ce@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58C7C032.7060706-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>

On 2017-03-14 06:04 AM, zhoucm1 wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>>> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 <david1.zhou@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I
>>>>>> send out
>>>>>> our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches?
>>>>> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of
>>>>> direct review.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he
>>>>> thinks this should
>>>>> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible,
>>>>> so I just adapted
>>>>> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd
>>>>> specific code
>>>>> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as
>>>>> an rfc, as I want
>>>>> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may
>>>>> end up going
>>>>> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad
>>>>> idea, so far it
>>>>> doesn't look like one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal
>>>>> interfaces,
>>>>> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in
>>>>> there I re
>>>>> wrote that as well.
>>>> Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this
>>>> implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they
>>>> could
>>>> need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this.
>>> This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream
>>> first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff
>>> like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary
>>> internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of
>>> experience
>>> implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development
>>> here at intel.
>>
>> "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that"
>>
>> Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it?
> I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:)
>

I'd wear it to the office.

https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg

Harry

> David Zhou
>>
>> Christian.
>>
>>> -Daniel
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx