On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 09:37:52PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote: > 2013/8/7 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > > > 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 > > > > Ah, right. However, it does not seem like good way. > > > > 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. > > > > Thanks a lot. :) Ah, I remember again why I want to also convert over exynos to the common dma buf release function: Later patches in my prime locking series will change things in there to avoid a userspace-triggerable oops. If we leave out exynos it'll break rather badly for dma-buf export. I need to think a bit more about what stuff looks like atm, but if I resend those parts I'll include exynos. It's a bit tricky that it still works, but that way you can fix it up without the introduction of a bisect failure point. -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
