Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Simplify flush_cpu_write_domain

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Simplify flush_cpu_write_domain
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:21:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150121142120.GM19354@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHCtsCjFX63_Oy4n01U421MwiQpUcVGs8TzRnJ89zBRMg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:13:58PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> @@ -3735,7 +3733,7 @@ i915_gem_object_set_to_gtt_domain(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, bool write)
> >>       if (ret)
> >>               return ret;
> >>
> >> -     i915_gem_object_flush_cpu_write_domain(obj, false);
> >> +     i915_gem_object_flush_cpu_write_domain(obj);
> >
> > This is the only place where there's a slight change in behaviour.
> > Previosuly we would not clflush here when pin_display==true, but from
> > now on we will. I had a patch to do only this change (part of some FBC
> > series), but IIRC you argued it could hide bugs. I guess you've
> > now changed you mind ;)
> 
> Hm, I don't remember that I've shot down a patch to change this and I
> can't come up with any reason any more why. But you're right that the
> commit message is a bit too silent about the behavioral change here.
> Lazy me will try harder and augment it when merging.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2013-November/036421.html

Also seems Chris already suggested dropping the force parameter back
then, but no one took the bait:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2013-November/036346.html

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx