On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:20:41AM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote: > Am 12.06.19 um 10:15 schrieb Nicolin Chen: > > Hi Christian, > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:05:53AM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote: > >> Am 12.06.19 um 10:02 schrieb Nicolin Chen: > >> [SNIP] > >>> We haven't used DRM/GRM_PRIME yet but I am also curious would it > >>> benefit DRM also if we reduce this overhead in the dma_buf? > >> No, not at all. > > From you replies, in a summary, does it means that there won't be a case > > of DRM having a dma_buf attaching to the same device, i.e. multiple calls > > of drm_gem_prime_import() function with same parameters of dev + dma_buf? > > Well, there are some cases where this happens. But in those cases we > intentionally want to get a new attachment :) Got it. > So thinking more about it you would actually break those and that is not > something we can do. That's true... > > If so, we can just ignore/drop this patch. Sorry for the misunderstanding. > > It might be interesting for things like P2P, but even then it might be > better to just cache the P2P settings instead of the full attachment. I see. Thank you for the answers!
