[PATCH 1/3] drm/etnaviv: submit support for in-fences

[Philipp Zabel]

On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 10:55 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2017-03-16 Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo at padovan.org> wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h
> > >> index 2584c1cca42f6..e9c388a1d8ebe 100644
> > >> --- a/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h
> > >> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/etnaviv_drm.h
> > >> @@ -154,6 +154,10 @@ struct drm_etnaviv_gem_submit_bo {
> > >>   * one or more cmdstream buffers.  This allows for conditional execution
> > >>   * (context-restore), and IB buffers needed for per tile/bin draw cmds.
> > >>   */
> > >> +#define ETNA_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT         0x0001
> > >> +#define ETNA_SUBMIT_FENCE_FD_IN         0x0002
> > >
> > > ETNA_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT and ETNA_SUBMIT_FENCE_FD_IN are the same, when
> > > you send and fence_fd to the kernel you are requesting on explicit sync
> > > thus I think the ETNA_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT can be dropped and
> > > ETNA_SUBMIT_FENCE_FD_IN would be the one to look at.
> > 
> > jfwiw, I kept separate no-implicit and fence-fd-in flags in msm mostly
> > because I couldn't think of a good backwards-compatible way to add it
> > later if needed.  Currently userspace sets both flags together, and
> > possibly always will.  But keeping separate flags seemed like a good
> > idea for future-proofing..
> 
> Fair enough. Let's do the same for etnaviv then.

Alright. Unless Lucas disagrees, I'll keep it as is for consistency.

regards
Philipp