Noralf Trønnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Den 12.07.2017 15.46, skrev Noralf Trønnes:
>> Add a library for drivers that can use a simple representation
>> of a GEM backed framebuffer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> This patch adds a gem backed drm_framebuffer like this:
>
> struct drm_fb_gem {
> /**
> * @base: Base DRM framebuffer
> */
> struct drm_framebuffer base;
> /**
> * @obj: GEM object array backing the framebuffer. One object per
> * plane.
> */
> struct drm_gem_object *obj[4];
> };
>
> Now I wonder if it would be better to extend drm_framebuffer instead:
>
> struct drm_framebuffer {
> + /**
> + * @obj: GEM objects backing the framebuffer, one per plane (optional).
> + */
> + struct drm_gem_object *obj[4];
> };
FWIW, I would love to see this tried. I think we would end up with some
nice cleanups if we did so.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
