Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: use seqlock for vblank time/count

2016-05-24 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 03:20:54PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:21:28PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > > This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with > > full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour > > of single times

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: use seqlock for vblank time/count

2016-05-24 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:21:28PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with > full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour > of single timestamp/count pair protected by a seqlock. In turn this > means we can now

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: use seqlock for vblank time/count

2016-05-11 Thread Matthew Auld
This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour of single timestamp/count pair protected by a seqlock. In turn this means we can now increment the vblank freely without the need for clamping. v2: - r

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: use seqlock for vblank time/count

2016-05-10 Thread Matthew Auld
This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour of single timestamp/count pair protected by a seqlock. In turn this means we can now increment the vblank freely without the need for clamping. v2: - r