On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:31:33 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 100 ------------------ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h | 2 - > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-) > > Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too? > > I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a > comment is in order? No, should be ok since we are using drm_invalid_op(). If we want to delete the unused 'struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer' we can do that by converting from DRM_IOW to DRM_IO in the DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER #define. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
