On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:27:52PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Guc is different since we really must have it ready for execbuf, and for > > that usecase a completion at drm_open time sounds like the right thing. > > But do we? It would be nice if we had a definite answer that the hw was > ready before we started using it in anger, but I don't see any reason > why we would have to delay userspace for a slow microcode update... > > (This presupposes that userspace batches are unaffected by GuC/execlist > setup, which for userspace sanity I hope they are - or at least using > predicate registers and conditional execution.)
Well I figured a wait_completion or flush_work unconditionally in execbuf is not to your liking, and it's better to keep that in open. But I think we should be able to get away with this at execbuf time. Might even be better since this wouldn't block sw-rendered boot-splashs. But either way should be suitable I think. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
