Hi On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Tomi, > > (CC'ing Daniel and David) > > On Wednesday 29 Mar 2017 11:58:23 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 29/03/17 11:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> > Hi Tomi, >> > >> > Thank you for the patch. >> > >> > On Tuesday 28 Mar 2017 16:07:52 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> >> From: Hemant Hariyani <hemanthariyani@xxxxxx> >> >> >> >> Add support for render nodes in omap driver and allow required >> >> ioctls to be accessible via render nodes. >> > >> > But the OMAP DSS doesn't perform rendering... This seems an abuse of >> > render nodes, I think the API should instead be implemented by the GPU >> > driver. >> >> I agree that the GPU use case described in the patch sounds a bit odd. >> Why not allocate from the GPU driver instead. But here a particular >> issue is that to get TILER buffers we need to ask them from the omapdrm. >> Probably TILER should not be part of omapdrm, but then, where should it >> be... >> >> We also have writeback in DSS, which can function as a memory to memory >> or capture device. That's not supported in the mainline, but we have >> support in the TI kernel. >> >> And how about a case where you have the privileged process as KMS >> master, and another process wants to draw to a buffer with the CPU, and >> then give the buffer to the privileged process for displaying. >> >> So, yes, DSS is not a renderer (well, WB is kind of rendering), but >> isn't it a valid use case to allocate a buffer from omapdrm? > > It could be a valid use case, but it's still an API abuse. It starts sounding > like a DRM core issue to me. The DRIVER_RENDER flag is not documented, so its > exact meaning isn't defined. I thought it was supposed to flag the device as a > renderer (GPU). > > commit 1793126fcebd7c18834f95d43b55e387a8803aa8 > Author: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun Aug 25 18:29:00 2013 +0200 > > drm: implement experimental render nodes > > Render nodes provide an API for userspace to use non-privileged GPU > commands without any running DRM-Master. It is useful for offscreen > rendering, GPGPU clients, and normal render clients which do not perform > modesetting. > > [...] > > You instead use the flag as a way to enable unprivileged clients to allocate > buffers. If that's what the flag should mean, I wonder if there would be a use > case for *not* setting it. Correct. You can (and should) enable all your sandboxed commands on render nodes. That is, if a command only affects the issuing client, then it is safe for render-nodes. If two clients have a file-context opened on the render node, they should be unable to affect each other (minus accounting, resource allocation, etc.). The name is historic (I did not come up with it either, but failed at renaming it..). The DRIVER_RENDER flag only controls whether the render-node is actually instantiated. I will not object doing that unconditionally. It will create some useless nodes for legacy drivers, but we should not care. Thanks David _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
