Hi,
> So perhaps this becomes:
>
> struct vfio_device_gfx_plane_info {
> __u64 start;
> __u64 drm_format_mod;
> __u32 drm_format;
> __u32 width;
> __u32 height;
> __u32 stride;
> __u32 size;
> __u32 x_pos;
> __u32 y_pos;
> };
Looks good.
> struct vfio_device_query_gfx_plane {
> __u32 argsz;
> __u32 flags;
> #define VFIO_GFX_PLANE_FLAGS_REGION_ID (1 << 0)
> #define VFIO_GFX_PLANE_FLAGS_PLANE_ID (1 << 1)
> struct vfio_device_gfx_plane_info plane_info;
> __u32 id;
> };
Hmm, plane isn't really an ID, it is a type, with type being either
DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY or DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR, so I don't think the
flage above make sense.
What are the nvidia plane for cursor support btw?
> The flag defines the data in the id field as either referring to a
> region (perhaps there could be multiple regions with only one active)
Well, we have a "start" field in vfio_device_gfx_plane_info (maybe we
should rename that to "offset"), which can be used to place multiple
planes into a single, fixed region.
Also I think it would be useful to have some way to figure the device
capabilities as the userspace workflow will look quite different for
the two cases.
cheers,
Gerd
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
