On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rob Clark <rob@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Semwal, Sumit <sumit.semwal@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> <snip> >>>> >>>> Hence for both patches: >>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Yeah I'm with Daniel, I like this one, I can definitely build the drm >>> buffer sharing layer on top of this. >>> >>> How do we see this getting merged? I'm quite happy to push it to Linus >>> if we don't have an identified path, though it could go via a Linaro >>> tree as well. >>> >>> so feel free to add: >>> Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Thanks Daniel and Dave! >> >> I guess we can start with staging for 3.3, and see how it shapes up. I >> will post the latest patch version pretty soon. > > not sure about staging, but could make sense to mark as experimental. Thanks, I will mark it experimental for the first version; we can remove that once it is more widely used and tested. > >> Arnd, Dave: do you have any preference on the path it takes to get >> merged? In my mind, Linaro tree might make more sense, but I would >> leave it upto you gentlemen. > > Looks like Dave is making some progress on drm usage of buffer sharing > between gpu's.. if that is ready to go in at the same time, it might > be a bit logistically simpler for him to put dmabuf in the same pull > req. I don't have strong preference one way or another, so do what is > collectively simpler ;-) :) Right - I am quite happy for it to get merged in either ways :) > > BR, > -R Best regards, ~Sumit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
