On 1 November 2013 02:35, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> On 31 October 2013 02:54, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 30 October 2013 09:44, Neil Roberts wrote:
>> >> > Tomeu Vi
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 31 October 2013 02:54, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 30 October 2013 09:44, Neil Roberts wrote:
> >> > Tomeu Vizoso writes:
> >> >
> >> >> What I fail to see is why a sing
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
Ok, you are in the crazy edge-case that I feared.
I'm not sure how crazy edge-case this is. A client wanting to limit the
number of buffers to 2 seems really useful, not just for saving memory
but for making it easier on the client implementation.
Therefore a client t
On 31 October 2013 02:54, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> On 30 October 2013 09:44, Neil Roberts wrote:
>> > Tomeu Vizoso writes:
>> >
>> >> What I fail to see is why a single sync should be enough, as we don't
>> >> know when the GPU will sign
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 30 October 2013 09:44, Neil Roberts wrote:
> > Tomeu Vizoso writes:
> >
> >> What I fail to see is why a single sync should be enough, as we don't
> >> know when the GPU will signal that it's done with the buffer that we
> >> are waiting
On Oct 30, 2013 3:59 AM, "Tomeu Vizoso" wrote:
>
> On 30 October 2013 09:44, Neil Roberts wrote:
> > Tomeu Vizoso writes:
> >
> >> What I fail to see is why a single sync should be enough, as we don't
> >> know when the GPU will signal that it's done with the buffer that we
> >> are waiting to b
On 30 October 2013 09:44, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Tomeu Vizoso writes:
>
>> What I fail to see is why a single sync should be enough, as we don't
>> know when the GPU will signal that it's done with the buffer that we
>> are waiting to be released.
>
> You are right that we don't know when the GPU
Tomeu Vizoso writes:
> What I fail to see is why a single sync should be enough, as we don't
> know when the GPU will signal that it's done with the buffer that we
> are waiting to be released.
You are right that we don't know when the GPU will release the buffer.
However we are not waiting for
>> > On 28 October 2013 11:19, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> >> I'm still concerned about platforms with high resolution displays but
>> >> relatively little memory.
>> >>
>> >> I'm thinking of the RPi, but my understanding is that Android goes to
>> >> great lengths to reduce the number of buffers that
Jason Ekstrand writes:
> You don't have to continuously sync, just sync after every
> attach/commit. While it may be somewhat non-obvious, I don't see how
> calling sync once per frame is any worse than setting some flag
> somewhere.
Hrmm thinking about it, I suppose sending the sync request isn
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Just to be clear, I think the discussion about whether to queue release
> events is no longer related to implementing eglSwapInterval(0) so it
> shouldn't hold up the patch. As far as I understand if you want to
> render at the maximum rate y
Just to be clear, I think the discussion about whether to queue release
events is no longer related to implementing eglSwapInterval(0) so it
shouldn't hold up the patch. As far as I understand if you want to
render at the maximum rate you need four buffer slots and being able to
disable the queuing
Hi,
On 28 October 2013 11:19, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> I'm still concerned about platforms with high resolution displays but
> relatively little memory.
>
> I'm thinking of the RPi, but my understanding is that Android goes to
> great lengths to reduce the number of buffers that clients have to
> ke
On 25 October 2013 16:50, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Ok, here is version 4 of the patch taking into account the discussion
> with Jason Ekstrand. The assumption is that if we have enough buffer
> slots then we should always get a release event immediately after one
> of the attaches.
I'm still concern
My knowledge of mesa and of the wl_display_prepare_read stuff is a bit
lacking. From what I can see, it looks good.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Ok, here is version 4 of the patch taking into account the discussion
> with Jason Ekstrand. The assumption is that if we h
Ok, here is version 4 of the patch taking into account the discussion
with Jason Ekstrand. The assumption is that if we have enough buffer
slots then we should always get a release event immediately after one
of the attaches. That means we can just rely on sending a sync request
after the commit in
16 matches
Mail list logo
