On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2013/8/7 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> >> >> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:18:45PM +0900, Joonyoung Shim wrote: >> > On 08/07/2013 06:55 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >>>-----Original Message----- >> > >>>From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] >> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:15 PM >> > >>>To: DRI Development >> > >>>Cc: Intel Graphics Development; Daniel Vetter; Inki Dae >> > >>>Subject: [PATCH 1/3] drm: use common drm_gem_dmabuf_release in >> > >>> i915/exynos >> > >>>drivers >> > >>> >> > >>>Note that this is slightly tricky since both drivers store their >> > >>>native objects in dma_buf->priv. But both also embed the base >> > >>>drm_gem_object at the first position, so the implicit cast is ok. >> > >>> >> > >>>To use the release helper we need to export it, too. >> > >>Yeah, may I repost this patch with additional work? We also need to >> > >> export >> > >>with a gem object instead of specific one like you did. >> > >> > I think dmabuf stuff of exynos can be replaced to common drm_gem_dmabuf. >> > Already dmabuf stuff of drm_gem_cma_helper.c was substituted to common >> > drm_gem_dmabuf with low-level hook functions to use prime helpers. >> >> Ah, but that can easily be done on top of this, right? > > > Daniel, could you remove exynos related codes from your patch set? Your > patch set would make exynos broken because you didn't consider exporting > with a gem object for exynos like [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: explicit store base > gem object in dma_buf->priv. So I think your patch set is not complete set, > and That is why exynos needs the additional work I mentioned above. So I > just wanted to repost your patch set + new one. Nope, my patch should not break exynos since the base gem_object is the first member of the exynos object, so we don't have any issues with upcasting in exynos dma-buf code. The same applies to i915 dma-buf code, my follow-up patch just makes the code a bit safer. > However, I think not only exynos could go to common drm_gem_dmabuf directly > but also it would make your patch set to be complete set if you remove > exynos related codes from your patch set. Otherwise, we have to work twice. > one is the additional work for resolving exynos broken issue by your patch > set, and other is to replace existing dmabuf stuff of exynos to common > drm_gem_dmabuf. Yeah np, I'll drop exynos then. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
