On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:16:54 -0700, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote: > diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c > index b776d2f..695a449 100644 > --- a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c > +++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c > @@ -1478,6 +1478,32 @@ drm_intel_gem_bo_wait_rendering(drm_intel_bo *bo) > drm_intel_gem_bo_start_gtt_access(bo, 1); > } > > +int drm_intel_gem_bo_wait(drm_intel_bo *bo, uint64_t *timeout_ns) > +{ > + drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem = (drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *) > bo->bufmgr; > + drm_intel_bo_gem *bo_gem = (drm_intel_bo_gem *) bo; > + struct drm_i915_gem_wait wait; > + int ret; > + > + if (!timeout_ns) > + return -EINVAL;
At least for the GL case, timeout of 0 ns wants to turn into
GL_TIMEOUT_EXPIRED or GL_ALREADY_SIGNALED. -EINVAL doesn't sound like
translating into either of those -- are you thinking that GL will
special case 0 ns to not call this function?
> +
> + wait.bo_handle = bo_gem->gem_handle;
> + wait.timeout_ns = *timeout_ns;
> + wait.flags = 0;
> + ret = drmIoctl(bufmgr_gem->fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_WAIT, &wait);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (wait.timeout_ns == 0) {
> + DBG("Wait timed out on buffer %d\n",
> bo_gem->gem_handle);
> + *timeout_ns = 0;
> + } else
> + *timeout_ns = wait.timeout_ns;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Do we see any consumers wanting the unslept time? GL doesn't care, and
not passing a pointer would be more convenient for the caller.
I guess GL_ALREADY_SIGNALED handling will be done using a check for
bo_busy() before calling this.
pgpES0ctcJJqA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
