On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:17:22PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:49:06PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > >> I guess in the short term, the best I can think is keep those phys > >> ioctls as a small patch on top of the upstream driver. It is ok to > >> leave place-holder ioctl #'s in the upstream driver so that the ioctl > >> #'s don't shift when you rebase. And then try to get the vendor to > >> add support for dmabuf so that the patch on top of upstream can > >> eventually be dropped. Maybe someone else has a better suggestion, > >> but I don't think we can merge those phys ioctls upstream, and I'd > >> really hate to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' in this case > >> and not at least get the modesetting part of the driver merged. > > > > What you're saying is basically: > > > > 1. Throw out DRM_ARMADA_GEM_CREATE_PHYS, which cripples video playback > > on existing gstreamer, xbmc and other implementations without someone > > rewriting all that code. > > > > 2. Throw out DRM_ARMADA_GEM_PROP, which prevents any form of passing > > the GEM objects to the GPU libraries in userspace, thereby preventing > > any kind of GPU based acceleration. > > > > That makes the driver just be a dumb scanout only driver. Sorry, > > that *really* does not interest me one bit, because the CPU doing > > framebuffer accesses is pig slow. > > Well, yes that is basically what I am saying, unless we can find a > different way (dmabuf? if there is some way to pass it through the > blob bits you don't have src code for?) > > The problem is that we really can't merge something upstream that lets > you dma to arbitrary physical address. Maybe in staging, perhaps? Or Which bit of "THIS DRIVER DOESN'T DMA _TO_ ANY ADDRESS" did you not yet? _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
