Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-10-28 Thread John Harrison
On 27/07/2015 12:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: Hi, On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: From: John Harrison The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should be set on demand rather than polled. That is, there should not be a need for a 'signaled

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-08-05 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 05-08-15 om 10:05 schreef Daniel Vetter: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> On 07/27/2015 03:00 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > From:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-08-05 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 07/27/2015 03:00 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >>On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > >>>From: John Harrison > >>> > >>>The intended us

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-08-03 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 07/27/2015 03:00 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: From: John Harrison The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should be set on demand rather tha

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-07-27 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > >From: John Harrison > > > >The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status > >should be > >set on demand rather than polled. That is, there shoul

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-07-27 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: From: John Harrison The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should be set on demand rather than polled. That is, there should not be a need for a 'signaled' function to be called everytime the status is que

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-07-27 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
Hi, On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: From: John Harrison The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should be set on demand rather than polled. That is, there should not be a need for a 'signaled' function to be called everytime the status i

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-07-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:31:21PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > From: John Harrison > > The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should > be > set on demand rather than polled. That is, there should not be a need for a > 'signaled' function to be called

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-07-20 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 17-07-15 om 16:31 schreef john.c.harri...@intel.com: > From: John Harrison > > The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should > be > set on demand rather than polled. That is, there should not be a need for a > 'signaled' function to be called everytime the statu

[Intel-gfx] [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences

2015-07-17 Thread John . C . Harrison
From: John Harrison The intended usage model for struct fence is that the signalled status should be set on demand rather than polled. That is, there should not be a need for a 'signaled' function to be called everytime the status is queried. Instead, 'something' should be done to enable a signal