Hi.
Eric Anholt wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 07:55 +0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:40 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
Turn off CRTCs
Unpin old framebuffer
Allocate new framebuffer
Copy from old to new
We needn't copy on resize, leaving us with allocate new, unpin
Jerome Glisse wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 10/18/07, Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Doesn't Kristian changes to DRI interface (DRI2) already allow to
clients to not care
about front buffer. I mean if they all got private back buffer then
they
render into it.
But
Hi, Eric.
Eric Anholt wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 11:32 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
DRM_BO_HINT_DONT_FENCE is implied, and use that instead of the set pin
interface. We can perhaps rename it to drmBOSetStatus or something more
suitable.
This will get rid of
Thomas Hellström wrote:
Hi, Eric.
Eric Anholt wrote:
...
Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout buffers
before unpinning them? That seems contradictory to me -- how are you
scanning out while the object is being moved, and how are you
considering it pinned
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Thomas Hellström wrote:
Hi, Eric.
Eric Anholt wrote:
...
Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout buffers
before unpinning them? That seems contradictory to me -- how are you
scanning out while the object is being moved, and how
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jerome Glisse wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Thomas Hellström wrote:
Hi, Eric.
Eric Anholt wrote:
...
Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout
buffers
before unpinning them? That seems contradictory to me -- how are you
scanning
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 07:55 +0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:40 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
Turn off CRTCs
Unpin old framebuffer
Allocate new framebuffer
Copy from old to new
We needn't copy on resize, leaving us with allocate new, unpin old, pin
new, free old.
On 10/18/07, Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Doesn't Kristian changes to DRI interface (DRI2) already allow to
clients to not care
about front buffer. I mean if they all got private back buffer then they
render into it.
But i might have misunderstood this.
Yes, of course.
There is also the following (i don't think it was mentioned before
in this thread):
card with 8Mo of ram (who the hell have such hw ? :))
I've got 40 of them :(
All of our desktops have integrated Intel ( i845g ) chips, and the BIOS
has the option of stealing either 1MB or 8MB of
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 10/18/07, Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Doesn't Kristian changes to DRI interface (DRI2) already allow to
clients to not care
about front buffer. I mean if they all got private back buffer then they
render into it.
But i might have misunderstood
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 03:04 +0200, Jerome Glisse wrote:
There is also the following (i don't think it was mentioned before
in this thread):
card with 8Mo of ram (who the hell have such hw ? :))
I've got 40 of them :(
All of our desktops have integrated Intel ( i845g ) chips, and the BIOS
Dave Airlie wrote:
DRM_BO_HINT_DONT_FENCE is implied, and use that instead of the set pin
interface. We can perhaps rename it to drmBOSetStatus or something more
suitable.
This will get rid of the user-space unfenced list access (which I
believe was the main motivation behind the set pin
DRM_BO_HINT_DONT_FENCE is implied, and use that instead of the set pin
interface. We can perhaps rename it to drmBOSetStatus or something more
suitable.
This will get rid of the user-space unfenced list access (which I
believe was the main motivation behind the set pin interface?) while
Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi,
Once the 915 super ioctl is merged, the patch attached removes the
unused interfaces left behind...
Are any of these worth saving?
Dave.
Dave,
As mentioned previously to Eric, I think we should keep the single
buffer validate interface with the exception that
Dave,
As mentioned previously to Eric, I think we should keep the single
buffer validate interface with the exception that the hint
DRM_BO_HINT_DONT_FENCE is implied, and use that instead of the set pin
interface. We can perhaps rename it to drmBOSetStatus or something more
suitable.
This
Dave Airlie wrote:
Dave,
As mentioned previously to Eric, I think we should keep the single
buffer validate interface with the exception that the hint
DRM_BO_HINT_DONT_FENCE is implied, and use that instead of the set pin
interface. We can perhaps rename it to drmBOSetStatus or something more
Hi,
Once the 915 super ioctl is merged, the patch attached removes the unused
interfaces left behind...
Are any of these worth saving?
Dave.
--
David Airlie, Software Engineer
http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie
Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG
From
17 matches
Mail list logo
