On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 09:49:27AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Yeah we definitely want this, but it'll have to be reconciled with the
> different request->fence patches. I'm not sure if it would be easier to move
> to per-context seqnos first or go this route and deal with the mismatch
>
On 12/11/2015 05:11 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> The fence object used inside the request structure requires a sequence
> number. Although this is not used by the i915 driver itself, it could
> potentially be used by non-i915 code if
From: John Harrison
The fence object used inside the request structure requires a sequence
number. Although this is not used by the i915 driver itself, it could
potentially be used by non-i915 code if the fence is passed outside of
the driver. This is the intention as