On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:16:29PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:17:02AM +0000, Antoine, Peter wrote: > > It's a little overkill? > > > > They just need to know if the cache tables have changed and to be able to sync their indexes to the KMD. > > We already shot ourselves in the foot with this MOCS ABI stuff. This > sysfs stuff just feels like digging the hole deeper, as in more legacy > baggage when we eventually have to change the whole apporach anyway. > Given our track record here I have a feeling that will happen at some > point. Yeah, sysfs for MOCS given how bad we just failed at making the ABI solid sounds like a very bad idea. More incremental ABI changes like Ville suggested please. This also needs review from Imre to make sure we have a consistent story here. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
