On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:04:21PM +0100, Thomas Daniel wrote:
> From: Oscar Mateo
>
> As suggested by Daniel Vetter. The idea, in subsequent patches, is to
> provide an alternative to these vfuncs for the Execlists submission
> mechanism.
>
> v2: Splitted into two and reordered to illustrate ou
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:04:21PM +0100, Thomas Daniel wrote:
> @@ -1408,8 +1408,8 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void
> *data,
> else
> exec_start += i915_gem_obj_offset(batch_obj, vm);
>
> - ret = legacy_ringbuffer_submission(dev, file, ring, ctx,
>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 04:36:53PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:04:21PM +0100, Thomas Daniel wrote:
> > From: Oscar Mateo
> >
> > As suggested by Daniel Vetter. The idea, in subsequent patches, is to
> > provide an alternative to these vfuncs for the Execlists submissi
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:04:21PM +0100, Thomas Daniel wrote:
> From: Oscar Mateo
>
> As suggested by Daniel Vetter. The idea, in subsequent patches, is to
> provide an alternative to these vfuncs for the Execlists submission
> mechanism.
>
> v2: Splitted into two and reordered to illustrate ou
From: Oscar Mateo
As suggested by Daniel Vetter. The idea, in subsequent patches, is to
provide an alternative to these vfuncs for the Execlists submission
mechanism.
v2: Splitted into two and reordered to illustrate our intentions, instead
of showing it off. Also, remove the add_request vfunc a
