Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:31:33PM -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > > > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > > > when it exists since libdrm commit > > > b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > > > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > > > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > > > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand > > > --- > > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c| 100 -- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h| 2 - > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-) > > > > Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in > > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too? > > I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a comment > is in order? These headers are copied unchanged to userspace for building. We don't use kernel-headers packages directly in any of our userspace (I hope at least), but still better safe than sorry and avoid compilation failures simply due to updated uapi headers that lost a few old things. Also we need at least the struct size because that's encoded in the ioctl number, and at that point might as well keep the entire thing. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:31:33 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand > --- > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c| 100 -- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h| 2 - > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-) > > Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too? > > I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a > comment is in order? No, should be ok since we are using drm_invalid_op(). If we want to delete the unused 'struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer' we can do that by converting from DRM_IOW to DRM_IO in the DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER #define. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" wrote: On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end for X11 has always used execbuffer2. Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand --- .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c| 100 -- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h| 2 - drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-) Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too? I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a comment is in order? --Jason ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand > --- > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c| 100 -- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h| 2 - > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-) Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too? ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 08:04, Keith Packard wrote: > > Jason Ekstrand writes: > > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. > > All execbuffer users in the past that I'm aware of used libdrm, which > now uses the execbuffer2 ioctl for this API. That means these > applications will remain ABI compatible through this change. > > Acked-by: Keith Packard Acked-by: Dave Airlie Dave. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
Jason Ekstrand writes: > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. All execbuffer users in the past that I'm aware of used libdrm, which now uses the execbuffer2 ioctl for this API. That means these applications will remain ABI compatible through this change. Acked-by: Keith Packard -- -keith signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
