On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:16:54 -0700, Ben Widawsky ben@bwidawsk.net 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.