On 03/03/2017 08:45 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Friday 03 Mar 2017 11:04:33 Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's >>> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well. >>> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be >>> moved out of staging. >>> >>> This includes the following: >>> - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of >>> use as far as I can tell. >>> >>> - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2] >>> but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing >>> applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an >>> effort to move to a model that isn't going directly against the >>> establishement though. >>> >>> - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well >>> recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as >>> specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to >>> userspace. >>> >>> - CMA allocations now happen without the need of a dummy device structure. >>> This fixes a bunch of the reasons why I attempted to add devicetree >>> support before. >>> >>> I've had problems getting feedback in the past so if I don't hear any >>> major objections I'm going to send out with the RFC dropped to be picked >>> up. The only reason there isn't a patch to come out of staging is to >>> discuss any other changes to the ABI people might want. Once this comes >>> out of staging, I really don't want to mess with the ABI. >>> >>> Feedback appreciated. >> >> Imo looks all good. And I just realized that cross-checking with the TODO, >> the 2 items about _CUSTOM and _IMPORT ioctls I noted are already there. >> >> Otherwise I looked through the patches, looks all really reasonable. > > Two more items that need to be addressed in my opinion : > > - Let's not export the ion_client API, we don't want drivers to be ion- > specific. Only the dma-buf interface should be visible to drivers. > Yes, that's a good point. I never heard back from anyone about a need for in kernel allocation via Ion. Thanks, Laura _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
