On 2 May 2017 at 15:01, Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Emil, > > On 2 May 2017 at 14:24, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Seems to be the correct place to handle here, despite that both are >> already handled. > > Honestly, I wouldn't have written this patch if I knew that; Lucas's > fix came in after the last time I'd pulled, and I didn't notice since > I didn't hit a conflict when I was rebasing. Oops. > >> As a follow-up can we: >> - drop atomic_run's "drm.kms_in_fence_fd = -1;" + git revert >> a46366c9903efc8b63eb4e78ae72f869be0b0a3d > > Dropping this in atomic_run() makes sense indeed, but honestly I think > Lucas's fix is fine as is. > Yes, Lucas' commit doesn't do anything wrong. I tend to find double initialisation a bit misleading at times, but it could be just me.
>> - in drm_atomic_commit() use "(flags & DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_ALLOW_MODESET) >> == 0" over "drm.kms_in_fence_fd != -1" > > I think this suggestion is wrong, or misleading at best. The > first-order thing we're interested in is if there's a fence available > to use (what the test now checks directly); the ALLOW_MODESET flag is > just a proxy for that. I'd rather not do this. I'll send another > related cleanup patch though. > Right, thanks for the correction. My initial assumption was that having a full modeset alongside a fence fd is not permitted. Upon second thought no reason comes to mind why such a restriction might be required. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
