[PATCH 1/7] protocol: add linux_dmabuf extension RFCv1
pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk
Wed Dec 17 00:23:03 PST 2014
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:19:53 -0800
Bill Spitzak <spitzak at gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like the purpose of "dmabuf_batch" is to send a more complex
> set of arguments to the dmabuf::create_buffer request. This is a
> variable-sized list of fd's, each containing a variable-sized list of
> planes. The Wayland protocol does not have a method of passing this as a
> request argument, so this object is used to build it with multiple
> requests. Is this correct? And is this considered the correct way to do
> this sort of thing in Wayland?
We could use wl_array, except it does not work with fd's. So yes, this
is the only way to get a variable number of fd's into a single
> It is not clear but I assume you must add at least one fd to the
> dmabuf_batch for this to work, right?
> Assuming this is correct, I think some consolidation of the objects
> would help. A few ideas:
> - Make create_buffer a method on dmabuf_batch, not on dmabuf.
I'm not sure what would be the difference. You can't do it without a
dmabuf_batch anyway (the spec does not have allow-null="true").
> - Get rid of dmabuf_create_feedback object, and just reuse the
> already-existing dmabuf_batch object to deliver the success/failure event.
Then it's not a dmabuf_batch anymore, you need to think of a new name
that describes it. Using a one-shot feedback object is a standard
Wayland design pattern.
> - I am a bit suspicious of the exactly 3 planes, there are 4:2:2 formats
> with alpha channels. I think it would be better if there was a request
This is modelled after
The EGL extension could be extended to fourth plane though, so maybe we
could use wl_array here to achieve easier extendability.
The DRM user ABI seems to use 4 indeed.
> - Isn't there a problem with having an event deliver a new object (ie
> the wl_buffer in the create_successful event)? Can the dmabuf_batch
> object just "be" a wl_buffer, but you cannot use it as a wl_buffer until
> you get the success event?
There is no problem in creating a new object by an event. It is rarely
used, but it must work.
> So in the most-cleaned-up version I can come up with the api is more
> like this:
> dmabuf - singleton factory used to create dmabuf_buffer.
> dmabuf::create_buffer - create a new dmabuf_buffer. You must then do
> some requests on it before it can be used as a wl_buffer.
> dmabuf::format event - same as you describe it
> dmabuf_buffer - A subclass of wl_buffer representing a (potential) dma
There is no such thing as sub-classing, all object types are strict and
must match exactly in the protocol (no inheritance or is-a). The
wl_buffer object must be created at some point.
> dmabuf_buffer::add_fd - Add a new fd describing a dmabuf
> dmabuf_buffer::add_plane - Add a plane (offset + stride) to map from the
> most recent fd.
> dmabuf_buffer::create - try to create the dma buffer. After this you
> cannot do the add_fd/plane requests.
> dmabuf_buffer::create_successful event - you can now use the
> dmabuf_buffer as a wl_buffer (for instance to attach it to a wl_surface).
> dmabuf_buffer::create_failed event - It did not work. The only thing you
> are allowed to do is destroy the dmabuf_buffer.
I wonder if that is simpler of just different, assuming you fix the
I'd rather not do "cosmetic" changes yet, because we are likely going
to need more parameters as the dma_buf kernel interfaces are
More information about the wayland-devel