On 08/26/2015 04:32 PM, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > On 08/26/2015 09:58 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> The other is that right now there's no user nor implementation in sight >> which actually does range-based flush optimizations, so I'm pretty much >> expecting we'll get it wrong. Maybe instead we should go one step >> further >> and remove the range from the internal dma-buf interface and also >> drop it >> from the ioctl? With the flags we can always add something later on once >> we have a real user with a clear need for it. But afaik cros only >> wants to >> shuffle around entire tiles and has a buffer-per-tile approach. > > Thomas, I think Daniel has a point here and also, I wouldn't mind > removing all range control from the dma-buf ioctl either. > > In this last patch we can see that it's not complicated to add the > 2d-sync if we eventually decides to want it. But right now there's no > way we can test it. Therefore in that case I'm all in favour of doing > this work gradually, adding the basics first. > Sure. Unfortunately I wasn't completely clear about the use-case here. IMO adding a user-space sync functionality should be purely for performance. /Thomas _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
