On 6/21/19 1:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Aargh. Please don't do this. Multiple reasons:
1) I think It's bad to dump all buffer object functionality we can
possibly think of in a single struct and force that on all (well at
least most) users. It's better to isolate functionality in structs, have
utility functions for those and let the drivers derive their buffer
objects from whatever functionality they actually need.
2) vmwgfx is not using gem and we don't want to carry that extra payload
in the buffer object.
3) TTM historically hasn't been using the various drm layers except for
later when common helpers have been used, (like the vma manager and the
cache utilities). It's desirable to keep that layer distinction. (which
is really what I'm saying in 1.)
Now if more and more functionality that originated in TTM is moving into
GEM we need to find a better way to do that without duplicating
functionality. I suggest adding pointers in the TTM structs and
defaulting those pointers to the member in the TTM struct. Optionally to
to the member in the GEM struct. If we need to migrate those members out
of the TTM struct, vmwgfx would have to provide them in its own buffer
class.
NAK from the vmwgfx side.
Thanks,
Thoams
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
