On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:59:46PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-01-12 at 16:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:21:51PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> > > > On 12/01/2016 14:04, Daniel Vetter wrot
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:59:46PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ti, 2016-01-12 at 16:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:21:51PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> > > On 12/01/2016 14:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:50:34AM +, John Harrison wrot
On ti, 2016-01-12 at 16:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:21:51PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> > On 12/01/2016 14:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:50:34AM +, John Harrison wrote:
> > > > On 12/01/2016 11:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > On Tu
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:21:51PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 14:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:50:34AM +, John Harrison wrote:
> >>On 12/01/2016 11:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:20AM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 12/0
On 12/01/2016 14:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:50:34AM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 12/01/2016 11:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:20AM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 12/01/2016 00:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +, j
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:50:34AM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 11:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:20AM +, John Harrison wrote:
> >>On 12/01/2016 00:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
>
On 12/01/2016 11:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:20AM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 12/01/2016 00:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
A later patch in this series re-organises the batch
On 12/01/2016 00:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
A later patch in this series re-organises the batch buffer submission
code. Part of that is to reduce the scope of a pm_get/put pair.
Specifically, they previ
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:20AM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 00:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> >>From: John Harrison
> >>
> >>A later patch in this series re-organises the batch buffer submission
> >>code. P
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> A later patch in this series re-organises the batch buffer submission
> code. Part of that is to reduce the scope of a pm_get/put pair.
> Specifically, they previously wrapped the entire submissio
From: John Harrison
A later patch in this series re-organises the batch buffer submission
code. Part of that is to reduce the scope of a pm_get/put pair.
Specifically, they previously wrapped the entire submission path from
the very start to the very end, now they only wrap the actual hardware
su
11 matches
Mail list logo
