On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:33 PM Koenig, Christian
wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.08.2019 18:28 schrieb Jason Ekstrand :
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:05 AM Koenig, Christian
> wrote:
>
> Am 01.08.19 um 15:45 schrieb Lionel Landwerlin:
> > Just had a few exchanges with Chris about this.
> > Chris suggests
Am 02.08.2019 18:28 schrieb Jason Ekstrand :
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:05 AM Koenig, Christian
mailto:christian.koe...@amd.com>> wrote:
Am 01.08.19 um 15:45 schrieb Lionel Landwerlin:
> Just had a few exchanges with Chris about this.
> Chris suggests that if we're about to add a point to the
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:05 AM Koenig, Christian
wrote:
> Am 01.08.19 um 15:45 schrieb Lionel Landwerlin:
> > Just had a few exchanges with Chris about this.
> > Chris suggests that if we're about to add a point to the timeline in
> > an unordered fashion, actually better not add it at all.
> >
Am 01.08.19 um 15:45 schrieb Lionel Landwerlin:
> Just had a few exchanges with Chris about this.
> Chris suggests that if we're about to add a point to the timeline in
> an unordered fashion, actually better not add it at all.
>
> What's your take on this?
That is a clear NAK. See not adding a
Just had a few exchanges with Chris about this.
Chris suggests that if we're about to add a point to the timeline in an
unordered fashion, actually better not add it at all.
What's your take on this?
I'm fine with this, but rather than add another variant of add_point()
maybe we change change
On 2019年07月30日 17:40, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 30/07/2019 12:36, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 05:31:26PM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
On 2019年07月30日 17:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
It is normal that binary syncobj
On 30/07/2019 12:36, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 05:31:26PM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
On 2019年07月30日 17:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
Signed-off-by:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 05:31:26PM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
>
>
> On 2019年07月30日 17:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
> > > It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou
> > Do we
On 2019年07月30日 17:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou
Do we hit this with one of the syncobj igts?
Unforturnately, No, It's only hit in AMDGPU
On 30/07/2019 12:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou
Do we hit this with one of the syncobj igts?
-Daniel
With one of the tests sitting on the
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:20:39PM +0800, Chunming Zhou wrote:
> It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou
Do we hit this with one of the syncobj igts?
-Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3
It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
index 929f7c64f9a2..bc7ec1679e4d 100644
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
