Re: [PATCH 09/10] drm/i915: wait render timeout ioctl

[Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:45:13 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:23:31PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Finally we can use the new timed seqno waiting function to allow
> > userspace to wait on a request with a timeout. This implements that
> > interface.
> > 
> > The new ioctl is very straight forward, there is a flags field which I
> > envision may be useful for various flush permutations of the command.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
> > ---
> 
> [cut]
> 
> > diff --git a/include/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/drm/i915_drm.h
> > index f3f8224..e365ab9 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/i915_drm.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/i915_drm.h
> > @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ typedef struct _drm_i915_sarea {
> >  #define DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2	0x29
> >  #define DRM_I915_GET_SPRITE_COLORKEY	0x2a
> >  #define DRM_I915_SET_SPRITE_COLORKEY	0x2b
> > +#define DRM_I915_GEM_WAIT	0x2c
> >  
> >  #define DRM_IOCTL_I915_INIT		DRM_IOW( DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_INIT, drm_i915_init_t)
> >  #define DRM_IOCTL_I915_FLUSH		DRM_IO ( DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_FLUSH)
> > @@ -243,6 +244,7 @@ typedef struct _drm_i915_sarea {
> >  #define DRM_IOCTL_I915_OVERLAY_ATTRS	DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_OVERLAY_ATTRS, struct drm_intel_overlay_attrs)
> >  #define DRM_IOCTL_I915_SET_SPRITE_COLORKEY DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_SET_SPRITE_COLORKEY, struct drm_intel_sprite_colorkey)
> >  #define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GET_SPRITE_COLORKEY DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_SET_SPRITE_COLORKEY, struct drm_intel_sprite_colorkey)
> > +#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_WAIT		DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_GEM_WAIT, struct drm_i915_gem_wait)
> >  
> >  /* Allow drivers to submit batchbuffers directly to hardware, relying
> >   * on the security mechanisms provided by hardware.
> > @@ -886,4 +888,11 @@ struct drm_intel_sprite_colorkey {
> >  	__u32 flags;
> >  };
> >  
> > +struct drm_i915_gem_wait {
> > +	__u32 bo_handle;
> > +	__u64 timeout_ns;
> > +	__u32 flags;
> > +	__u32 rsvd;
> > +};
> 
> struct layout gone wrong, you miss a __u32 before the __u64.
> -Daniel

Got it, thanks. I'm just planning to drop the rsvd field actually.