> 26 aug 2015 kl. 16:58 skrev Tiago Vignatti <tiago.vignatti@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> 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 > Sure! Thomas _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
