On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:36:36PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:14:22AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
2016-04-26 Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:33:25PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
From: Gustavo Padovan gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk
There is now a new property called FENCE_FD attached to every plane state that receives the sync_file fd from userspace via the atomic commit IOCTL.
I still don't like this property abuse. Also with atomic, all passed fences must be waited upon before anything is done, so attaching them to planes seems like it might just give people the wrong idea.
I'm actually fine with this as property, but another solutions is use an array of {plane, fence_fd} and extend drm_atomic_ioctl args just like we have done for out fences. However the FENCE_FD property is easier to handle in userspace than the array. Any other idea?
Imo FENCE_FD is perfectly fine. But what's the concern around giving people the wrong idea with attaching fences to planes? For nonblocking commits we need to store them somewhere for the worker, drm_plane_state seems like an as good place as any other.
It gives the impression that each plane might flip as soon as its fence signals.