Hi,
> > struct virtgpu_object {
>
> Yeah, using "virtgpu_" rather than "virtio_gpu" makes sense.
It wasn't my intention to suggest a rename. It's just that the kernel
is a bit inconsistent here and I picked the wrong name here. Most
places use virtio_gpu but some use virtgpu (file names, ioctl api).
> > struct virtgpu_object_hostmem {
> > struct virtgpu_object base;
> > {offset, range};
> > (...)
>
> I'm a kernel newbie, so it's not obvious to me why struct
> drm_gem_shmem_object would be a base class for struct
> virtgpu_object_hostmem?
I think it is easier to just continue using virtio_gpu_object in most
places and cast to virtio_gpu_object_{shmem,hostmem} only if needed.
Makes it easier to deal with common fields like hw_res_handle.
In the hostmem case we would simply not use the drm_gem_shmem_object
fields except for drm_gem_shmem_object.base (which is drm_gem_object).
> Side question: is drm_gem_object_funcs.vmap(..) /
> drm_gem_object_funcs.vunmap(..) even possible for hostmem?
Sure. Using ioremap should work, after asking the host to map the
object at some location in the pci bar.
cheers,
Gerd
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
