[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gbm/dri: Flush after unmap

[Michel Dänzer]

On 30/03/17 05:09 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 03/30/2017 05:48 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 30/03/17 12:56 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 03/29/2017 02:34 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> On 29 March 2017 at 13:02, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/29/2017 01:30 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>>>> On 28 March 2017 at 20:39, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c b/src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c
>>>>>>> index ac7ede8..6c2244c 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c
>>>>>>> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ struct dri_extension_match {
>>>>>>>  };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  static struct dri_extension_match dri_core_extensions[] = {
>>>>>>> -   { __DRI2_FLUSH, 1, offsetof(struct gbm_dri_device, flush) },
>>>>>>> +   { __DRI2_FLUSH, 4, offsetof(struct gbm_dri_device, flush) },
>>>>>> Currently the classic nouveau, radeon/r200 and i915 drivers do not
>>>>>> support v4 of the extension.
>>>>>> As-is this will 'break' them... if they ever worked to begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One solution is to bail out (return -ENOSYS or similar) in map/unmap
>>>>>> API of the when the DRI module is too old.
>>>>>> Just some ^^ food for thought.
>>>>> Hmm. Is there even a use-case for gbm with those drivers? If so we
>>>>> should perhaps make them up-to-date with the flush extension.
>>>>>
>>>> Of the above:
>>>>
>>>> - nouveau: Does not support DRI_IMAGE, thus it doesn't work even
>>>> before the patch.
>>>> - i915: I have some untested ancient patches. Will see if I can rebase
>>>> + send out.
>>>> - radeons: ??
>>>>
>>>> If someone reports an issue we can ask them to write/test some code, I guess ;-)
>>> Indeed. It looks like gbm is mostly used together with KMS anyway...
>> All of the above drivers are KMS based, FWIW.
>>
>>
> Do you think it's worthwhile to have them functioning with GBM?

I think it could make sense at least for r200, possibly also radeon, but
I don't know their current status wrt GBM.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer