On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:29:03PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj() only needs the framebuffer, and the desird > rotation (to find the right GTT view for it), so no need to pass all > kinds of plane stuff. imho this is a mistep, I think using the plane-state to not only pass the full description of the plane being bound (which may have additional information like the need for fencing for fbc as well as alternative views, i.e. it is a lot more versatile) but also allows us to track the binding for the plane-state and tie the VMA to lifetime of the plane. i.e. I think intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj would be better described as intel_plane_state_pin_vma (and correspondingly intel_plane_state_unpin_vma). Yes, intel_fbdev.c is a wart to any proposed interface. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
