Hi Russell, everyone,
First up, sincere apologies for being awol for sometime; had some
personal / medical things to take care of, and then I thought I'd wait
for the merge window to get over before beginning to discuss this
again.
On 11 February 2015 at 21:53, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:20:24PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2015-02-11 12:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >Which is a damn good reason to NAK it - by that admission, it's a half-baked
> >idea.
> >
> >If all we want to know is whether the importer can accept only contigu
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:23:52AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > As I've already pointed out, there's a major problem if you have already
>> > had a less restrictive attac
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:23:52AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > As I've already pointed out, there's a major problem if you have already
> > had a less restrictive attachment which has an active mapping, and a new
> > more restric
Hello,
On 2015-02-11 12:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:28:37AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
On 2015-01-27 09:25, Sumit Semwal wrote:
Add some helpers to share the constraints of devices while attaching
to the dmabuf buffer.
At each attach, the constraints are
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:28:37AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 2015-01-27 09:25, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>> >Add some helpers to share the constraints of devices while attaching
>> >to the dmabuf buffer.
>> >
>> >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:28:37AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2015-01-27 09:25, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> >Add some helpers to share the constraints of devices while attaching
> >to the dmabuf buffer.
> >
> >At each attach, the constraints are calculated based on the following:
> >
Hello,
On 2015-01-27 09:25, Sumit Semwal wrote:
Add some helpers to share the constraints of devices while attaching
to the dmabuf buffer.
At each attach, the constraints are calculated based on the following:
- max_segment_size, max_segment_count, segment_boundary_mask from
device_dma_para
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2015 14:41:09 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 03 February 2015 09:04:03 Rob Clark wrote:
>> > > Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of bu
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:52:48PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2015 14:41:09 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I'd go as far as saying that the "DMA API on top of IOMMU" is more
> > intended to be for a system IOMMU for the bus in question, rather
> > than a device-level
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 03 February 2015 09:04:03 Rob Clark wrote:
>> > Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of built in mmu, my plan was to
>> > drop use of dma-mapping entirely
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:44:57AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:04:03AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of built in mmu, my plan was to
> >> drop use of dma-mapping entir
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 14:41:09 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 February 2015 09:04:03 Rob Clark wrote:
> > > Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of built in mmu, my plan was to
> > > drop use of dma-mapping en
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:04:03AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of built in mmu, my plan was to
>> drop use of dma-mapping entirely (incl the current call to dma_map_sg,
>> which I just need until
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2015 09:04:03 Rob Clark wrote:
> > Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of built in mmu, my plan was to
> > drop use of dma-mapping entirely (incl the current call to dma_map_sg,
> > which I just need until we c
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:04:03AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> Since I'm stuck w/ an iommu, instead of built in mmu, my plan was to
> drop use of dma-mapping entirely (incl the current call to dma_map_sg,
> which I just need until we can use drm_cflush on arm), and
> attach/detach iommu domains direc
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote:
> 2015-02-03 13:28 GMT+01:00 Russell King - ARM Linux :
> > What I've found with *my* etnaviv drm implementation (not Christian's - I
> > found it impossible to work with Christian, especially with the endless
> > "msm doesn't do it
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to no
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 09:04:03 Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent so
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
>> >> an exporter can actually do.. I think the s
2015-02-03 13:28 GMT+01:00 Russell King - ARM Linux :
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to pr
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:28:14PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > >> My initial thought is for d
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
> > >> an exporter can actually do.. I
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 05:36:10PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> well, I guess anyways when it comes to sharing buffers, it won't be
> the vram placement of the bo that gets shared ;-)
Actually that's pretty much what I'd like to be able to do for i915.
Except that vram is just a specially protected c
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
> >> an exporter can actually do.. I think the scenario you describe could
> >> be handled by two sg-lists,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 09:46:16PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
> > >> an exporter can actu
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
>> >> an exporter can actually do.. I
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
> >> an exporter can actually do.. I think the scenario you describe could
> >> be handled by two sg-lists,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
>> an exporter can actually do.. I think the scenario you describe could
>> be handled by two sg-lists, if the exporter was clever enough.
>
> That's already needed, each
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:18:33PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:52:09PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> Quite possibly for some of these edge some of cases, some of the
> >> dma-buf exporters are going to n
Hi Russell,
On 30 January 2015 at 00:56, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:52:09PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> Quite possibly for some of these edge some of cases, some of the
>> dma-buf exporters are going to need to get more clever (ie. hand off
>> different scatterlis
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:18:33PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > Now, if we're going to do the "more clever" thing you mention above,
>> > that rather negates t
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:18:33PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > Now, if we're going to do the "more clever" thing you mention above,
> > that rather negates the point of this two-part patch set, which is to
> > provide the union o
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:52:09PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> Quite possibly for some of these edge some of cases, some of the
>> dma-buf exporters are going to need to get more clever (ie. hand off
>> different scatterlists to dif
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:52:09PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> Quite possibly for some of these edge some of cases, some of the
> dma-buf exporters are going to need to get more clever (ie. hand off
> different scatterlists to different clients). Although I think by far
> the two common cases will b
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:00:11PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>> So, short answer is, it is left to the exporter to decide. The dma-buf
>> framework should not even attempt to decide or enforce any of the
>> above.
>>
>> At each d
On 29 January 2015 at 21:17, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:00:11PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>> So, short answer is, it is left to the exporter to decide. The dma-buf
>> framework should not even attempt to decide or enforce any of the
>> above.
>>
>> At each dma_bu
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:00:11PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> So, short answer is, it is left to the exporter to decide. The dma-buf
> framework should not even attempt to decide or enforce any of the
> above.
>
> At each dma_buf_attach(), there's a callback to the exporter, where
> the exporter
Hi Russell!
On 29 January 2015 at 20:09, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:55:54PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * recalc_constraints - recalculates constraints for all attached devices;
>> + * useful for detach() recalculation, and for dma_buf_recalc_constrai
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:55:54PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> +/*
> + * recalc_constraints - recalculates constraints for all attached devices;
> + * useful for detach() recalculation, and for dma_buf_recalc_constraints()
> + * helper.
> + * Returns recalculated constraints in recalc_cons, or
Op 27-01-15 om 09:25 schreef Sumit Semwal:
> Add some helpers to share the constraints of devices while attaching
> to the dmabuf buffer.
>
> At each attach, the constraints are calculated based on the following:
> - max_segment_size, max_segment_count, segment_boundary_mask from
>device_dma_pa
41 matches
Mail list logo
