On 08/24/2015 07:04 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24 August 2015 at 17:56, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/24/2015 05:52 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> I still don't think this ameliorates the need for batching: consider
>>> the case where you update two disjoint screen regions and want them
>>> both flushed. Either you issue two separate sync calls (which can be
>>> disadvantageous performance-wise on some hardware / setups), or you
>>> accumulate the regions and only flush later. So either two ioctls (one
>>> in the style of dirtyfb and one to perform the sync/flush; you can
>>> shortcut to assume the full buffer was damaged if the former is
>>> missing), or one like this:
>>>
>>> struct dma_buf_sync_2d {
>>> enum dma_buf_sync_flags flags;
>>>
>>> __u64 stride_bytes;
>>> __u32 bytes_per_pixel;
>>> __u32 num_regions;
>>>
>>> struct {
>>> __u64 x;
>>> __u64 y;
>>> __u64 width;
>>> __u64 height;
>>> } regions[];
>>> };
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel
>> Fine with me, although perhaps bytes_per_pixel is a bit redundant?
> Redundant how? It's not implicit in stride.
For flushing purposes, isn't it possible to cover all cases by assuming
bytes_per_pixel=1? Not that it matters much.
/Thomas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
