[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm: use common drm_gem_dmabuf_release in i915/exynos drivers

[Inki Dae]

2013/8/7 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae at samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/7 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:18:45PM +0900, Joonyoung Shim wrote:
> >> > On 08/07/2013 06:55 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae at samsung.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> >> > >>>From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch]
> >> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:15 PM
> >> > >>>To: DRI Development
> >> > >>>Cc: Intel Graphics Development; Daniel Vetter; Inki Dae
> >> > >>>Subject: [PATCH 1/3] drm: use common drm_gem_dmabuf_release in
> >> > >>> i915/exynos
> >> > >>>drivers
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>Note that this is slightly tricky since both drivers store their
> >> > >>>native objects in dma_buf->priv. But both also embed the base
> >> > >>>drm_gem_object at the first position, so the implicit cast is ok.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>To use the release helper we need to export it, too.
> >> > >>Yeah, may I repost this patch with additional work?  We also need to
> >> > >> export
> >> > >>with a gem object instead of specific one like you did.
> >> >
> >> > I think dmabuf stuff of exynos can be replaced to common
> drm_gem_dmabuf.
> >> > Already dmabuf stuff of drm_gem_cma_helper.c was substituted to common
> >> > drm_gem_dmabuf with low-level hook functions to use prime helpers.
> >>
> >> Ah, but that can easily be done on top of this, right?
> >
> >
> > Daniel, could you remove exynos related codes from your patch set? Your
> > patch set would make exynos broken because you didn't consider exporting
> > with a gem object for exynos like [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: explicit store
> base
> > gem object in dma_buf->priv. So I think your patch set is not complete
> set,
> > and That is why exynos needs the additional work I mentioned above. So I
> > just wanted to repost your patch set + new one.
>
> Nope, my patch should not break exynos since the base gem_object is
> the first member of the exynos object, so we don't have any issues
>

Ah, right. However, it does not seem like good way.


> with upcasting in exynos dma-buf code. The same applies to i915
> dma-buf code, my follow-up patch just makes the code a bit safer.
>
>
>

>

>
> However, I think not only exynos could go to common drm_gem_dmabuf
> directly
> > but also it would make your patch set to be complete set if you remove
> > exynos related codes from your patch set. Otherwise, we have to work
> twice.
> > one is the additional work for resolving exynos broken issue by your
> patch
> > set, and other is to replace existing dmabuf stuff of exynos to common
> > drm_gem_dmabuf.
>
> Yeah np, I'll drop exynos then.
>

Thanks a lot. :)

Thanks,
Inki Dae


> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20130807/173816da/attachment.html>