On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I can take a look at it, I just won't have time until next week most likely. > > I've taken a look, and it's seemingly more complicated than I'm > expecting I'd want to land in Mesa before 17.2 ships, I'd really > prefer to just push the new libdrm_amdgpu api from this patch. If I > have to port all the current radv code to the new API, I'll most > definitely get something wrong. > > Adding the new API so far looks like > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~airlied/drm/log/?h=drm-amdgpu-cs-submit-raw > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~airlied/drm/commit/?h=drm-amdgpu-cs-submit-raw&id=e7f85d0ca617fa41e72624780c9035df132e23c4 > being the API, and whether it should take a uint32_t context id or > context handle left as an open question in the last patch in the > series. > > However to hook this into radv or radeonsi will take a bit of > rewriting of a lot of code that is probably a bit more fragile than > I'd like for this sort of surgery at this point. > > I'd actually suspect if we do want to proceed with this type of > interface, we might be better doing it all in common mesa code, and > maybe bypassing libdrm_amdgpu altogether, which I suppose the API I've > written here is mostly already doing. Well, we plan to stop using the BO list ioctl. The interface has bo_list_handle in it. Will we just set it to 0 when add the chunk for the inlined buffer list i.e. what radeon has? Marek
