On 08/26/2015 11:51 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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.
yep, I can do it.
Thomas, so we leave 2d sync out now?
Tiago
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
