| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
It doesn't look like there should be a dependency there.
v2: s/intel_batchbuffer/intel_reg/
v3: One more s/intel_batchbuffer/intel_reg/ in benchmarks
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Katarzyna Dec <katarzyna.dec@intel.com>
|
|
v2: Hook the syncobj array to the execbuf!
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
|
|
Keep userspace light and don't spend time testing the result if we don't
use it.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
|
|
gem_execbuf_wr was duplicated in multiple places.
Moving everything to lib/
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Fiedorowicz <lukasz.fiedorowicz@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
|
|
Instead of causing each engine to execute serially (and so only testing
on fence underneath the sync_file) merge them all together (as we do for
the other interfaces).
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
|
|
And include poll(dmabuf) for comparison.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
|
