[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/3] FBC locking

[Paulo Zanoni]

2001-01-02 4:58 GMT-02:00 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com>:
> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>
> Release early, release often!
>
> So patch 1 is not really FBC locking but it's another trivial patch from
> December which I wanted to stop carrying around.
>
> Patches 2 and 3 are the real locking thing. I know they could have been just a
> single patch, but I decided to split them for bisectability reasons. We probably
> shouldn't bisect anything to the "add the FBC mutex" patch, and if we bisect
> something to the other patch, it will be easier to fix the problem - or revert -
> if we already have fbc.lock. I can squash them if needed, no problem.
>
> Notice that on patch 3 I remove the locking around a lot of calls from
> intel_display.c. On a future patch I will completely remove all those calls and
> rely only on the frontbuffer tracking infrastructure to update fbc through the
> invalidate/flush functions. But before we can do this, we need an additional fix
> which I'm already discussing with Daniel about.
>
> The patches pass kms_frontbuffer_testing and kms_fbc_crc without any lockdep
> assertions.

For some reason the email came with a date of 2001. So let's bump the
thread to the top of people's inboxes using this reply. Sorry.

>
> Thanks,
> Paulo
>
> Paulo Zanoni (3):
>   drm/i915: don't increment the FBC threshold at fbc_enable
>   drm/i915: add the FBC mutex
>   drm/i915: stop using struct_mutex for FBC
>
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c    |  10 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h        |   1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c |   7 +++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c   |  18 +-----
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h       |   1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c       | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  6 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.1.4
>



-- 
Paulo Zanoni