On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 14:35 +0800, Terje Bergström wrote: > On 21.08.2012 09:12, Mark Zhang wrote: > > OK, thank you. In current version, all devices are created by > > "of_platform_populate" in board init function. So if we still need to > > define devices in dt, what's the benefit that we put these device > > creation works into host1x's probe function? I don't see any difference > > although create device in host1x probe() sounds more reasonable... > > Until I have managed to integrate nvhost to tegradrm, the devices > creation should be done as it is done now. With nvhost, we will need > extra data per device, so we'll need to create the devices in nvhost. > OK. Thank you. > > OK. So we have fence to sync all operations on a specific buffer. So > > this also means we should add fence support on GEM and dma-buf > > implementation both, right? > > We'll have fences for operations, not buffers. User space must figure > out that if operation that reads from/writes to buffer is complete, the > buffer is ready to be reused. > Discussion in mm-sig attaches fences to buffers, which would cause a lot > of synchronization logic being added to kernel. Each operation can work > on multiple buffers, some in read-only, some in read-write, some in > write-only mode, so we'd end up returning an array of fences in a > complicated structure. > OK. I'll have a look at discussions in mm-sig. > It's simpler if kernel just knows when operation ends, and lets user > space take care of the complexity. > > Terje > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
