[PATCH v3 5/7] drm/panfrost: Add a new ioctl to submit batches

[Boris Brezillon]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:49:55 -0400
Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa at collabora.com> wrote:

> > > ```  
> > > >  #define PANFROST_BO_REF_EXCLUSIVE	0x1
> > > > +#define PANFROST_BO_REF_NO_IMPLICIT_DEP	0x2    
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > This seems logically backwards. NO_IMPLICIT_DEP makes sense if we're
> > > trying to keep backwards compatibility, but here you're crafting a new
> > > interface totally from scratch. If anything, isn't BO_REF_IMPLICIT_DEP
> > > the flag you'd want?  
> > 
> > AFAICT, all other drivers make the no-implicit-dep an opt-in, and I
> > didn't want to do things differently in panfrost. But if that's really
> > an issue, I can make it an opt-out.  
> 
> I don't have strong feelings either way. I was just under the
> impressions other drivers did this for b/w compat reasons which don't
> apply here.

Okay, I think I'll keep it like that unless there's a strong reason to
make no-implicit dep the default. It's safer to oversync than the skip
the synchronization, so it does feel like something the user should
explicitly enable.

> 
> > > Hmm. I'm not /opposed/ and I know kbase uses strides but it seems like
> > > somewhat unwarranted complexity, and there is a combinatoric explosion
> > > here (if jobs, bo refs, and syncobj refs use 3 different versions, as
> > > this encoding permits... as opposed to just specifying a UABI version or
> > > something like that)  
> > 
> > Sounds like a good idea. I'll add a version field and map that
> > to a <job_stride,bo_ref_stride,syncobj_ref_stride> tuple.  
> 
> Cc Steven, does this make sense?

I have this approach working, and I must admit I prefer it to the
per-object stride field passed to the submit struct.