Hi Daniel,
thanks for jumping in here.
And yes, you are absolutely right we need to get this fixed and not yell
at each other that we have a different understanding of things.
Your proposal sounds sane to me, but I wouldn't call it slots. Rather
something like "use cases" since we can have
Am 18.06.21 um 19:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:43 PM Christian König
wrote:
Am 18.06.21 um 17:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
Ignoring _all_ fences is officially ok for pinned dma-buf. This is
what v4l does. Aside from it's definitely not just i915 that does this
even
Am 18.06.21 um 17:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
Ignoring _all_ fences is officially ok for pinned dma-buf. This is
what v4l does. Aside from it's definitely not just i915 that does this
even on the drm side, we have a few more drivers nowadays.
No it seriously isn't. If drivers are doing
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 8:02 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 18.06.21 um 19:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:43 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> >> Am 18.06.21 um 17:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>> [SNIP]
> >>> Ignoring _all_ fences is officially ok for pinned dma-buf.
Am 18.06.21 um 16:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
And that drivers choose to ignore the exclusive fence is an absolutely
no-go from a memory management and security point of view. Exclusive
access means exclusive access. Ignoring that won't work.
Yeah, this is why I've been going all over the
Sorry for the mobile reply, but V4L2 is absolutely not write-only; there has
never been an intersection of V4L2 supporting dmabuf and not supporting reads.
I see your point about the heritage of dma_resv but it’s a red herring. It
doesn’t matter who’s right, or who was first, or where the code
Acked-by: Tony Ye
Regards,
Tony
On 6/11/2021 4:40 PM, Matthew Brost wrote:
> Add entry for i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan.
>
> v2:
> (Daniel Vetter):
>- Expand logical order explaination
>- Add dummy header
>- Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL
>- Configure parallel
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:43 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 18.06.21 um 17:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > [SNIP]
> > Ignoring _all_ fences is officially ok for pinned dma-buf. This is
> > what v4l does. Aside from it's definitely not just i915 that does this
> > even on the drm side, we have a
Hello everyone!
The third bugfix release for the 21.1 branch is finally here, a couple of
days late because life got in the way. This one contains mostly AMD fixes.
The next bugfix release is scheduled for two weeks from now, on June 30th.
Cheers,
Eric
---
Adam Jackson (1):
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:42 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 18.06.21 um 16:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > [SNIP]
> >> And that drivers choose to ignore the exclusive fence is an absolutely
> >> no-go from a memory management and security point of view. Exclusive
> >> access means exclusive
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:15 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 17.06.21 um 21:58 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >> [SNIP]
> >>> But, to the broader point, maybe? I'm a little fuzzy on exactly where
> >>> i915 inserts and/or depends
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:15 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 17.06.21 um 21:58 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >> [SNIP]
> >>> But, to the broader point, maybe? I'm a little fuzzy on exactly where
> >>> i915 inserts and/or depends on
Am 17.06.21 um 21:58 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
[SNIP]
But, to the broader point, maybe? I'm a little fuzzy on exactly where
i915 inserts and/or depends on fences.
When you combine that with complex drivers which use TTM and
13 matches
Mail list logo
