Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-09 Thread Harry Wentland
On 2017-05-09 04:24 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:54:22PM -0400, Harry Wentland wrote: Hi Daniel, Thanks for taking the time to look at DC. I had a couple more questions/comments in regard to the patch you posted on IRC: http://paste.debian.net/plain/930704 My

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-09 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:54:22PM -0400, Harry Wentland wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for taking the time to look at DC. > > I had a couple more questions/comments in regard to the patch you posted on > IRC: http://paste.debian.net/plain/930704 > > My impression is that this item is the most

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-09 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:50:36PM -0400, Harry Wentland wrote: > > > On 2017-05-08 03:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: > > On 9 May 2017 at 04:54, Harry Wentland wrote: > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > Thanks for taking the time to look at DC. > > > > > > I had a couple more

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-08 Thread Harry Wentland
On 2017-05-08 03:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: On 9 May 2017 at 04:54, Harry Wentland wrote: Hi Daniel, Thanks for taking the time to look at DC. I had a couple more questions/comments in regard to the patch you posted on IRC: http://paste.debian.net/plain/930704 My

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-08 Thread Harry Wentland
Hi Daniel, Thanks for taking the time to look at DC. I had a couple more questions/comments in regard to the patch you posted on IRC: http://paste.debian.net/plain/930704 My impression is that this item is the most important next step for us: From a quick glance I think what we want

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-08 Thread Dave Airlie
On 9 May 2017 at 04:54, Harry Wentland wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for taking the time to look at DC. > > I had a couple more questions/comments in regard to the patch you posted on > IRC: http://paste.debian.net/plain/930704 > > My impression is that this item is the

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-03 Thread Harry Wentland
On 2017-05-03 11:02 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:26:51PM +0200, Christian König wrote: Hi Harry, while this looks more and more like it could work something which would really help would be to have a set of patches squashed together and rebased on drm-next. The

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:26:51PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Hi Harry, > > while this looks more and more like it could work something which would > really help would be to have a set of patches squashed together and rebased > on drm-next. > > The dc-drm-next-atomic-wip looks like a start,

Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-03 Thread Harry Wentland
Hi all, Over the last few months we (mostly Andrey and myself) have taken and addressed some of the feedback received from December's DC RFC. A lot of our work so far centers around atomic. We were able to take a whole bunch of the areas where we rolled our own solution and use DRM atomic

Re: Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

2017-05-03 Thread Christian König
Hi Harry, while this looks more and more like it could work something which would really help would be to have a set of patches squashed together and rebased on drm-next. The dc-drm-next-atomic-wip looks like a start, but we need more something like: drm/amdgpu: add base DC components