According to the spec, PresentOptionAsync should only
trigger a different behaviour when the target msc has been reached.
In this case if the driver is able to do async swaps, we use
them to avoid a screen copy.
When the target msc hasn't been reached yet, we want to use sync swaps.
Signed-off-b
On 03.11.2015 17:14, Axel Davy wrote:
> According to the spec, PresentOptionAsync should only
> trigger a different behaviour when the target msc has been reached.
>
> In this case if the driver is able to do async swaps, we use
> them to avoid a screen copy.
>
> When the target msc hasn't been r
On 04/11/2015 04:17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 03.11.2015 17:14, Axel Davy wrote:
According to the spec, PresentOptionAsync should only
trigger a different behaviour when the target msc has been reached.
In this case if the driver is able to do async swaps, we use
them to avoid a screen copy.
Wh
On 04/11/2015 08:26, Axel Davy wrote:
On 04/11/2015 04:17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 03.11.2015 17:14, Axel Davy wrote:
+} else if (target_msc == crtc_msc &&
+(options & PresentOptionAsync) &&
+(screen_priv->info->capabilities &
PresentCapabilityAsync) &&
+
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
> According to the spec, PresentOptionAsync should only
> trigger a different behaviour when the target msc has been reached.
>
> In this case if the driver is able to do async swaps, we use
> them to avoid a screen copy.
>
> When the tar
On 04/11/2015 10:40, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
+if (pixmap != NULL &&
+!(options & PresentOptionCopy) &&
+screen_priv->info) {
+if (target_msc > crtc_msc &&
+present_check_flip (target_crtc, window, pixm
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:48:40AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
> On 04/11/2015 10:40, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
> >>+if (pixmap != NULL &&
> >>+!(options & PresentOptionCopy) &&
> >>+screen_priv->info) {
> >>+if (target
On 04/11/2015 11:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:48:40AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could you explain:
>> . Why you increase target_msc when the Async option is requested ?
>
> It's the fallthrough path where the client requested an async swap but
> we cannot perform one
On 05.11.2015 01:51, davya...@free.fr wrote:
> On 04/11/2015 11:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:48:40AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
>>>
>>> . Why you check for Async flips first (isn't sync flips better when
>>> possible) ?
>>
>> The choice is between using native async flips or e
On 05.11.2015 12:05, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 05.11.2015 01:51, davya...@free.fr wrote:
>> On 04/11/2015 11:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:48:40AM +0100, Axel Davy wrote:
. Why you check for Async flips first (isn't sync flips better when
possible) ?
>>>
>>>
10 matches
Mail list logo