[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/2] I915 GEM context updates

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Weinehall
<david.weinehall at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:01:06PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:36:55PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:01:23PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 01:49:27PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:24:51PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
>> > > > > > This patch contains a few minor updates related to
>> > > > > > I915 GEM context.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As a kernel API, this is absolutely awful. Can we please correct it before
>> > > > > it is released?
>> > > >
>> > > > Daniel has already merged it and didn't have any objections, so you'll
>> > > > have to convince him, not me.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you believe it's awful, feel free to provide a better implementation.
>> > >
>> > > As I recall, I did.
>> >
>> > Hmmm, I must've missed your patch -- if so I apologise.  What was the
>> > title of the post, and how come Daniel hasn't merged that one instead?
>>
>> I gave details on a comment to your patch, where I thought the api could
>> be improved.
>
> Yeah, I got the bits about you not liking the approach, but the things
> you write in this e-mail are the first suggestions that I find concrete
> enough for me to actually know what you want instead.

Imo NONZEROMAP is still good to go, and good enough for
opencl/beignet. Allowing more fancy placement constraints might be
useful eventually, but thus far I haven't seen a compelling reason
really. Or not compelling enough at least.

And I don't think there's a point in blocking beignet for something
too fancy. Hence this still has my Ack. It gets the (really specific)
job done for beignet, which seems good enough.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch