On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:24:19PM +0100, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
+ i915_gem_execbuffer_move_to_active(vmas, ring);
+ i915_gem_execbuffer_retire_commands(dev, file, ring, batch_obj);
This is where I start freaking out over the mix of global vs logical
state and the implications of
-Original Message-
From: Chris Wilson [mailto:ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Mateo Lozano, Oscar
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Extract the actual workload
submission mechanism from execbuffer
] drm/i915: Extract the actual workload
submission mechanism from execbuffer
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:24:19PM +0100, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
+ i915_gem_execbuffer_move_to_active(vmas, ring);
+ i915_gem_execbuffer_retire_commands(dev, file, ring, batch_obj);
This is where I start
From: Oscar Mateo oscar.ma...@intel.com
So that we isolate the legacy ringbuffer submission mechanism, which becomes
a good candidate to be abstracted away. This is prep-work for Execlists (which
will its own workload submission mechanism).
No functional changes.
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes
From: Oscar Mateo oscar.ma...@intel.com
So that we isolate the legacy ringbuffer submission mechanism, which becomes
a good candidate to be abstracted away. This is prep-work for Execlists (which
will its own workload submission mechanism).
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo
