> Yeah my big concern was with not making this opt-in like the old patch or > adding an interface which does a lot more than what we need right now > (Chris' patch). Just a bitflag to ask for this seems best and is fine with me. > > And for the implementation I think we should reuse the PIN_BIAS logic since > that'll work in all places where it's possible. One open from my side is how > we should handle failures to move buffers (in case they ended up at 0 > somehow) - we can either silently fail or return an error to userspace. > > Note that this is only possible if you render to an elg image from ocl, and if > that egl image is a pinned frontbuffer and if we don't have full ppgtt support. > I don't know what the spec requires us to do here, or whether we should > care at all. So the situation you mentioned only comes up when a pinned buffer under global gtt? Under global gtt, a buffer would rarely binded at offset 0, in fact the most often cases are under ppgtt. So, I think silent ignore moving pinned buffer under gtt is acceptable. I will add the check for the binded at zero case in beignet. Ruiling > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > Beignet mailing list > Beignet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
