From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: track sprite coverage and
 disable primary plane if possible
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:46:32 -0800
Message-ID: <20111116084632.50ff7cde@jbarnes-desktop>
References: <1321302133-23197-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<1321302133-23197-3-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<CAKMK7uGvvib3Qc3T-+7+83v3_4VdAUL76mBW3AFv80xUnTqkXw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com
	[67.222.54.6])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 06C85A0C1A
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:45:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uGvvib3Qc3T-+7+83v3_4VdAUL76mBW3AFv80xUnTqkXw@mail.gmail.com>
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: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:05:50 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 21:22, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wr=
ote:
> > To save power when the sprite is full screen, we can disable the primary
> > plane on the same pipe. =A0Track the sprite status and enable/disable t=
he
> > primary opportunistically.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes
> =

> Imo the indirection is overkill because afaics there's no difference.
> And in my experience this will only get in the way when later hw
> _really_ needs some abstraction (*cough* intel_ringbuffer.c *cough*.
> Can we just kill it?

Yeah I can make ivb and snb share at least (and probably ilk), but I
*do* have code coming that needs the separation.  (At least I'm pretty
sure; I'll remove the abstraction if it turns out I don't need it.)

Thanks,
-- =

Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center