From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2003-09-30 13:59:15
|
Does anyone know why the radeon & r128 drivers call FLUSH_RING when in the BlockHandler ? Alan. |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2003-09-30 14:21:02
|
Alan Hourihane wrote: > Does anyone know why the radeon & r128 drivers call FLUSH_RING when in > the BlockHandler ? No -- seems unnecessary. Perhaps a hangover from the days when 2D accel was disabled with dri? Keith |
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2003-09-30 14:41:16
|
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 15:58, Alan Hourihane wrote: > Does anyone know why the radeon & r128 drivers call FLUSH_RING when in > the BlockHandler ? This is the best way to ensure that the indirect buffer gets flushed according to Mark Vojkovich. Without it, drawing operations could get stuck in the indirect buffer for quite a while. See the dri-devel archives. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2003-09-30 15:27:25
|
Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 15:58, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >>Does anyone know why the radeon & r128 drivers call FLUSH_RING when in >>the BlockHandler ? > > > This is the best way to ensure that the indirect buffer gets flushed > according to Mark Vojkovich. Without it, drawing operations could get > stuck in the indirect buffer for quite a while. See the dri-devel > archives. Ah, yes. What's confusing here is the naming of the macro: FLUSH_RING() doesn't actually have anything to do with the ring, but rather sends the buffer of commands being built up in the X server off to the kernel. Perhaps renaming the macro to FLUSH_INDIRECT_BUFFER() would help make things clearer? Keith |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2003-09-30 15:32:04
|
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:20:23PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote: > Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > >On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 15:58, Alan Hourihane wrote: > > > >>Does anyone know why the radeon & r128 drivers call FLUSH_RING when i= n > >>the BlockHandler ? > > > > > >This is the best way to ensure that the indirect buffer gets flushed > >according to Mark Vojkovich. Without it, drawing operations could get > >stuck in the indirect buffer for quite a while. See the dri-devel > >archives. >=20 > Ah, yes. What's confusing here is the naming of the macro: FLUSH_RING= ()=20 > doesn't actually have anything to do with the ring, but rather sends th= e=20 > buffer of commands being built up in the X server off to the kernel. >=20 > Perhaps renaming the macro to FLUSH_INDIRECT_BUFFER() would help make=20 > things clearer? Sounds good.=20 Alan. |