On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 08:54:33PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > Am 20.12.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Li, Samuel <Samuel.Li at amd.com> wrote: > > > Ping... can someone please review this patch? > > Might be simpler to implement your own dma-buf backend instead of > > going through the drm_prime midlayer. That was mostly written to give > > nvidia a set of non-EXPORT_GPL symbols to support dma-buf. Or > > something like that. > > Ah, that explains that. Well the alternative Sam suggest was to export most > of the functions implementing that. Yeah that sounds like a good idea, makes it feel less midlayer-y. > But then we have a hard time having a common detection logic if a DMA-buf > has a GEM object behind it or not. Hm, why do you need that? I guess you'll care whether it's an amdgpu-exported one, and you can still do that by checking against your own dma_buf_ops table. We do the same in i915, without using the core drm_prime helpers. > > Also don't expect people to look at patches when CI bots spot issues. > > That is either a false positive or a one liner. Hey it's holiday seasons, leave me some cheap excuses pls :-) Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
