> -----Original Message----- > From: intel-gvt-dev [mailto:intel-gvt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Gerd Hoffmann > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 7:04 PM > To: Zhang, Tina <tina.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>; Alex Williamson > <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Wang, Zhenyu Z <zhenyu.z.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chen, Xiaoguang > <xiaoguang.chen@xxxxxxxxx>; Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx>; Lv, > Zhiyuan <zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gvt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wang, > Zhi A <zhi.a.wang@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf > operations > > On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 09:20 +0000, Zhang, Tina wrote: > > Thanks for all the comments. I'm planning to cook the next version of > > this patch set > > How about posting only this patch instead of the whole series until we've settled > the interfaces? OK. > > > Could the following two works? > > #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_DMABUF (1 << 5) /* vfio-dmabuf > > device */ > > VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_GFX_DMABUF? > > > 2. vfio_device_gfx_plane_info > > struct vfio_device_gfx_plane_info { > > __u64 start;-> offset > > __u64 drm_format_mod; > > __u32 drm_format; > > __u32 width; > > __u32 height; > > __u32 stride; > > __u32 size; > > __u32 x_pos; > > __u32 y_pos; > > }; > > > Does it make sense to have a "generation" field in the plane_info > > > struct (which gets increased each time the struct changes) ? > > > Well, Gerd, can you share more details about how to use this field in > > user mode, so that we can figure out a way to support it? Thanks. > > generation would be increased each time one of the fields in > vfio_device_gfx_plane_info changes, typically on mode switches (width/height > changes) and pageflips (offset changes). So userspace can simply compare > generation instead of comparing every field to figure whenever something > changed compared to the previous poll. Make sense for dma-buf. Thanks. > > > > > 3. vfio_device_query_gfx_plane > > 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; > > __u32 plane_type; > > }; > > So far, dmabuf use id for DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY or > > DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR. > > > > If the newly added plane_type is used for this, the id field may be > > useless in dmabuf usage. Do you have any idea about the usage of this > > id field in dmabuf usage? > > plane_type should be DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY or > DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR for dmabuf. > > Given that nvidia doesn't support a separate cursor plane in their region they > would support DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY only. > > I can't see yet what id would be useful for. > > Likewise I can't see yet what the VFIO_GFX_PLANE_FLAGS_* are good for. > > cheers, > Gerd > > _______________________________________________ > intel-gvt-dev mailing list > intel-gvt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gvt-dev _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
