On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:17:32AM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Rutkowski, Adam J wrote: > > > Having said all this, how about restoring the pin_ioctl? At least for > > > some time? We do have a use case and moving to other - better - > > > solution would take time. I think backward compatibility is something > > > that you take into consideration as well. > > > > So, I just sent a patch reverting the change. Daniel will have an > > opinion about this I'm sure, being the original author. Let see what > > happens when he's back from holidays. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Damien > > Just a note for a future ppgtt people - this adds another way to get > multiple VMAs for a single BO. To this point, it had only been flink, > and dmabuf. IIRC there are few unhandled corner cases for this. Also > note that if the BO is still referenced within a batch, we need the flag > to tell us it needs global binding. > > FWIW, I remain in favor of the relocation idea unless someone already > expressed why we need multiple processes to have the relocation info. > I just realized there isn't really a good way to make the buffer persist at the same offset if we use the relocation method. So I take back the statement that it's a good idea. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
