[igt-dev] [PATCH v19 1/6] include/drm-uapi: import i915_drm.h header file

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 08/04/19 09:56, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 08/04/2019 17:47, Andi Shyti wrote:
>> Hi Tvrtko,
>>
>>>> This header file is imported in order to include the two new
>>>> ioctls DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM,
>>>> DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM and DRM_IOCTL_I915_QUERY.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/drm-uapi/i915_drm.h | 361 
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>    1 file changed, 304 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/drm-uapi/i915_drm.h b/include/drm-uapi/i915_drm.h
>>>> index 4ae1c6ff6ae6..2bbad08eb9d2 100644
>>>> --- a/include/drm-uapi/i915_drm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/drm-uapi/i915_drm.h
>>>> @@ -62,6 +62,26 @@ extern "C" {
>>>>    #define I915_ERROR_UEVENT        "ERROR"
>>>>    #define I915_RESET_UEVENT        "RESET"
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * i915_user_extension: Base class for defining a chain of extensions
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Many interfaces need to grow over time. In most cases we can simply
>>>> + * extend the struct and have userspace pass in more data. Another 
>>>> option,
>>>> + * as demonstrated by Vulkan's approach to providing extensions for 
>>>> forward
>>>> + * and backward compatibility, is to use a list of optional structs to
>>>> + * provide those extra details.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * The key advantage to using an extension chain is that it allows 
>>>> us to
>>>> + * redefine the interface more easily than an ever growing struct of
>>>> + * increasing complexity, and for large parts of that interface to be
>>>> + * entirely optional. The downside is more pointer chasing; chasing 
>>>> across
>>>> + * the boundary with pointers encapsulated inside u64.
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct i915_user_extension {
>>>> +    __u64 next_extension;
>>>> +    __u64 name;
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Just a note to not merge this version since my branch has accidentally
>>> diverged from latest drm-tip in this respect.
>>
>> yes, it slipped off my mind. Do you have any plans to rebase your
>> branch? I would send the patches today.
> 
> I do have plans but I won't make it today. Will let you know.

Are we saying to merge the header file from a private branch? if that is 
the case, can we have 'LOCAL_' definitions of the IOCTLs you are trying 
to import. It might get messy in case the private and public version 
diverge again. If that is not the case, ignore me ;).

Antonio

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko
> 
> _______________________________________________
> igt-dev mailing list
> igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev