On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:32:30AM -0300, 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. if we go with nuking it from the ioctl I'd suggest to also nuke it from the dma-buf internal inferface first too. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
