On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:25:03 +0200
Dieter Nützel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 29. September 2002 22:57 schrieb Felix Kühling:
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:47:47 +0200
> >
> > Felix Kühling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:22:44 -0700
> > >
> > > Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/dri
> > > > Module name:    xc
> > > > Repository:     xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/
> > > > Changes by:     keithw@usw-pr-cvs1.     02/09/29 13:22:44
> > > >
> > > > Log message:
> > > >   irqwait patch from felix
> > > >
> > > > Modified files:
> > > >       xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/:
> > > >         radeon_context.c radeon_context.h radeon_ioctl.c
> > > >
> > > >   Revision      Changes    Path
> > > >   1.19          +1 -0     
> > > > xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_context.c 1.15          +1 -0  
> > > >    xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_context.h 1.27          +54
> > > > -49    xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_ioctl.c
> > >
> > > Thanks for applying. However, this was yesterday's patch ;-). Just cvs
> > > updated my tree and made a patch of my NEW waiting code against the
> > > latest trunk. See "[patch] smart irq/busy wait in
> > > radeonWaitForFrameCompletion" on dri-devel. I just realized that I
> > > forgot to include radeon_context.[ch] in the patch posted with that
> > > mail. :-| This one is complete.
> >
> > Oops, forgot one debug message. Could you remove
> >    fprintf (stderr, "Waited %d.\r", wait);
> > from radeon_ioctl.c line 692 manually? I don't want to spam the list
> > with patches.
> 
> Is r100/r200 a completely different thing?
> If not why not a patch against both?
> Then the testing audience should be much "wider".

Sure. As far as I could see the code is very similar. However, this:    
   rmesa->do_irqs = (0 && 
                     rmesa->dri.drmMinor >= 6 && 
                     !getenv("R200_NO_IRQS") &&
                     rmesa->r200Screen->irq);
looks like IRQs are turned off by default on R200. So my code wouldn't
be used. Is the reason for IRQs being disabled that the frame throttling
is not implemented properly or are there lower level problems with IRQs?

> Thanks,
>       Dieter

Felix

               __\|/__    ___     ___     ___
__Tschüß_______\_6 6_/___/__ \___/__ \___/___\___You can do anything,___
_____Felix_______\Ä/\ \_____\ \_____\ \______U___just not everything____
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    >o<__/   \___/   \___/        at the same time!


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to