On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Robert Foss <robert.f...@collabora.com> wrote: > Hey Tomasz, > > > On 02/16/2018 05:10 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:36 PM, Robert Foss >>>>>>> <robert.f...@collabora.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> uint32_t (*get_fd)(buffer_handle_t handle, uint32_t >>>>>>>>>>>>> plane); >>>>>>>>>>>>> uint64_t (*get_modifier)(buffer_handle_t handle, >>>>>>>>>>>>> uint32_t >>>>>>>>>>>>> plane); >>>>>>>>>>>>> uint32_t (*get_offsets)(buffer_handle_t handle, uint32_t >>>>>>>>>>>>> plane); >>>>>>>>>>>>> uint32_t (*get_stride)(buffer_handle_t handle, uint32_t >>>>>>>>>>>>> plane); >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> } gralloc_funcs_t; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These ones? > >>>>>>>>> Yeah, if we could retrieve such function pointer struct using >>>>>>>>> perform >>>>>>>>> or any equivalent (like the implementation-specific methods in >>>>>>>>> gralloc1, but not sure if that's going to be used in practice >>>>>>>>> anywhere), it could work for us. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So this is where you and Rob Herring lose me, I don't think I >>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>> quite how the gralloc1 call would be used, and how it would tie into >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> handle struct. I think I could do with some guidance on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would be very similar to gralloc0 perform call. gralloc1 >>>>>>> implementations need to provide getFunction() callback [1], which >>>>>>> returns a pointer to given function. The list of standard functions >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> defined in the gralloc1.h header [2], but we could take some random >>>>>>> big number and use it for our function that fills in provided >>>>>>> gralloc_funcs_t struct with necessary pointers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/libhardware/+/master/include/hardware/gralloc1.h#300 >>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/libhardware/+/master/include/hardware/gralloc1.h#134 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a deadend because it won't work with a HIDL based >>>>>> implementation (aka gralloc 2.0). You can't set function pointers (or >>>>>> any pointers) because gralloc runs in a different process. Yes, >>>>>> currently gralloc is a pass-thru HAL, but AIUI that will go away. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Part of it. I can't see IMapper being implemented by a separate >>>>> process. You can't map a buffer into one process from another process. >>>>> >>>>> But anyway, it's a good point, thanks, I almost forgot about its >>>>> existence. I'll do further investigation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Okay, so IMapper indeed breaks the approach I suggested. I'm not sure >>>> at the moment what we could do about it. (The idea of a dynamic >>>> library of a pre-defined name, exporting functions we specify, might >>>> still work, though.) >>>> >>>> Note that the DRM_GRALLOC_GET_FD used currently by Mesa will also be >>>> impossible to implement with IAllocator/IMapper. (Although I still >>>> think Mesa and Gralloc are free to have separate logic for choosing >>>> the DRM device to use.) >>> >>> >>> I think the need for GET_FD goes away when the render node is used. We >>> may still need the card node for s/w rendering (if I can ever get that >>> working) though. Of course, if we use the vgem approach like CrOS then >>> we wouldn't. >> >> >> Hmm, if so, then we probably wouldn't have any strict need for these >> function pointers anymore. We already have a makeshift format resolve >> in place and the only missing bits that we still need to patch up >> downstream are removing GET_FD, dropping drm_gralloc.h and adding a >> fallback to kms_swrast if hw driver loading fails. > > > So this discussion is slightly unrelated, but it is where me looking at this > started. > > So I've got a kms_swrast fallback series[1], that I've been wanting to test > before trying to push upstream, but haven't been able to run it in the > Android environment and the arc++ + chromiumos has also been problematic for > various reasons (which are being looked into). > > Tomasz: If you're interested in testing the series, it would be helpful. > Hopefully testing is everything that needed for upstreaming. > > [1] https://gitlab.collabora.com/robertfoss/mesa/commits/kms_swrast
+Gurchetan, who I believe is recently taking care of swrast on our side. Sure, I'd be more than happy to test it on Monday. Best regards, Tomasz _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev