On 9/3/2019 1:29 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 03 Sep 2019, "Sharma, Shashank" <shashank.sha...@intel.com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of
Jani
Nikula
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 7:02 PM
To: Manna, Animesh <animesh.ma...@intel.com>; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 08/10] drm/i915/dsb: Enable gamma lut
programming using DSB.
You have tons of functions here that will never have a DSB engine, it
makes no sense to convert all of them to use the DSB.
Jani,
I was thinking even among the 3 engines available per pipe, would it
make more sense to keep them reserve on the basis of user ? like DSB0
for all pipe operations, DSB1 for all plane, and DSB2 for all encoder
related stuff. We can create a DSB user (like we have for scaler) and
index these engines based on that. Do you think so ?
And perhaps use some DSB engines to write immediately, some to write at
vblank. However, all of this should be postponed to follow-up work.
For now, if we use intel_dsb_write and friends with the dsb parameter as
local variable passed in, converting to use a different engine is a
metter of changing the preceding intel_dsb_get call to fetch the dsb
pointer.
Considering the progress of a patch series, the focus should be on
getting patches merged. Getting the minimum sebsible enabling of DSB
merged should be the focus here. The further iteration should happen
in-tree, not out-of-tree.
Sure, it makes sense to simplify this in steps.
- Shashank
BR,
Jani.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
