Em 16-05-2011 17:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski escreveu: > On Sat, 14 May 2011, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >> Em 18-04-2011 17:15, Jesse Barker escreveu: >>> One of the big issues we've been faced with at Linaro is around GPU >>> and multimedia device integration, in particular the memory management >>> requirements for supporting them on ARM. This next cycle, we'll be >>> focusing on driving consensus around a unified memory management >>> solution for embedded systems that support multiple architectures and >>> SoCs. This is listed as part of our working set of requirements for >>> the next six-month cycle (in spite of the URL, this is not being >>> treated as a graphics-specific topic - we also have participation from >>> multimedia and kernel working group folks): >>> >>> https://wiki.linaro.org/Cycles/1111/TechnicalTopics/Graphics >> >> As part of the memory management needs, Linaro organized several discussions >> during Linaro Development Summit (LDS), at Budapest, and invited me and other >> members of the V4L and DRI community to discuss about the requirements. >> I wish to thank Linaro for its initiative. > > [snip] > >> Btw, the need of managing buffers is currently being covered by the proposal >> for new ioctl()s to support multi-sized video-buffers [1]. >> >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg30869.html >> >> It makes sense to me to discuss such proposal together with the above discussions, >> in order to keep the API consistent. > > The author of that RFC would have been thankful, if he had been put on > Cc: ;) If I had added everybody interested on this summary, probably most smtp servers would refuse to deliver the message thinking that it is a SPAM ;) My intention were to submit a feedback about it when analysing your rfc patches, if you weren't able to see it before. > But anyway, yes, consistency is good, but is my understanding > correct, that functionally these two extensions - multi-size and > buffer-forwarding/reuse are independent? Yes. > We have to think about making the > APIs consistent, e.g., by reusing data structures. But it's also good to > make incremental smaller changes where possible, isn't it? So, yes, we > should think about consistency, but develop and apply those two extensions > separately? True, but one discussion can benefit the other. IMO, we should not rush new userspace API merges, to avoid merging a code that weren't reasonably discussed, as otherwise, the API will become too messy. Thanks, Mauro. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
