[PATCH v2 00/13] drm/exynos: async G2D and g2d_move()

[Hyungwon Hwang]

Dear All,

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:35:29 +0000
Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
> 
> On 22 November 2015 at 18:48, Tobias Jakobi
> <tjakobi at math.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > this series mostly touches G2D code. It introduces the following:
> >
> > (1) drmHandleEvent2() is added to enable processing of
> > vendor-specific events. This will be used to expose asynchronous
> > operation of the G2D. The necessary kernel infrastructure is
> > already there since a lot of kernel versions. [This touches libdrm
> > core code!]
> >
> Considering the shortage of input on this can you please respin the
> series without it (and related work mentioned below). This way we can
> pick merge the remaining work now and discuss (ping) about the rest.

I am confused a little here. Did you mean that adding drmHandleEvent2()
is not necessary, and the related code which uses drmHandleEvent2() must
be re-implemented?

> 
> > (2) The necessary infrastructure to handle G2D events. This includes
> >     adding g2d_config_event() and g2d_exec2() to the public API.
> >     A test application is provided to ensure that everything works
> >     as expected.
> >
> With above in mind the g2d event will need to be split out, although
> g2d_exec2() should be ok (although of limited use), imho.
> 
> > (3) A small performance test application which can be used to
> > measure the speed of solid color clear operations. Interesting for
> >     benchmarking and plotting colorful graphs (e.g. through
> >     Mathematica).
> >
> > (4) g2d_move() which works similar to g2d_copy() but like the C
> >     memmove() properly handles overlapping buffer copies.
> >     Again a test application is present to check that this
> >     indeed does what it should.
> >
> > (5) Various small changes. A framebuffer colorformat fix for the
> >     general G2D test application. Moving the currently unused
> >     g2d_reset() to the public API.
> I am more of a "add API when it's needed" kind of person, although I
> cannot see anything serious misuse that can arise from g2d_reset().
> 
> > Adding a counterpart to
> >     exynos_bo_map() to unmap buffers again.
> >
> The exynos bo map compatibility was broken a few times already so I'm
> wondering if we really want this one. I guess that with the lack of
> any (outside of tizen) user space things cannot go that wrong :-P
> 

Yes. I agree that adding them at this time is not needed and it would
be OK to add them, when the userspace using them comes.

BRs,
Hyungwon Hwang

> Thanks
> Emil
>