[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:08:52 -0500 Adam Jackson wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:34 +, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > Not sure what you mean there, those 3 APIs are just to create dumb > > unaccelerated objects, > > probably are fine for vgem's use. For scanout we create framebuffer > > objects

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Dave Airlie
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 18:10 +0100, Ben Widawsky wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) >> Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: >> > Any reason why you are not using the dumb_bo interface? I at least >> > would like to be able to offer vgem

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Adam Jackson
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:34 +, Dave Airlie wrote: > Not sure what you mean there, those 3 APIs are just to create dumb > unaccelerated objects, > probably are fine for vgem's use. For scanout we create framebuffer > objects from a dumb object > then we do shove it back in from above. > > So

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Adam Jackson
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 18:10 +0100, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) > Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: > > Any reason why you are not using the dumb_bo interface? I at least > > would like to be able to offer vgem on the vmwgfx device when the > > host has disabled 3D. > >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Adam Jackson
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 18:10 +0100, Ben Widawsky wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) Jakob Bornecrantz ja...@vmware.com wrote: Any reason why you are not using the dumb_bo interface? I at least would like to be able to offer vgem on the vmwgfx device when the host has disabled

Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Dave Airlie
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 18:10 +0100, Ben Widawsky wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) Jakob Bornecrantz ja...@vmware.com wrote: Any reason why you are not using the dumb_bo interface? I at least would like to be

Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Adam Jackson
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:34 +, Dave Airlie wrote: Not sure what you mean there, those 3 APIs are just to create dumb unaccelerated objects, probably are fine for vgem's use. For scanout we create framebuffer objects from a dumb object then we do shove it back in from above. So if the

Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-21 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:08:52 -0500 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:34 +, Dave Airlie wrote: Not sure what you mean there, those 3 APIs are just to create dumb unaccelerated objects, probably are fine for vgem's use. For scanout we create framebuffer

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-20 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: Adam Jackson > > > > This is about as minimal of a virtual GEM service as possible. My > > plan is to use this with non-native-3D hardware for buffer sharing > > between X and DRI. > >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-20 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) Jakob Bornecrantz ja...@vmware.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com This is about as minimal of a virtual GEM service as possible. My plan is to use this with non-native-3D hardware for buffer sharing

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-16 Thread Jakob Bornecrantz
- Original Message - > From: Adam Jackson > > This is about as minimal of a virtual GEM service as possible. My > plan is to use this with non-native-3D hardware for buffer sharing > between X and DRI. > > The current drisw winsys assumes an unmodified X server, which means > it's

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-09 Thread Ben Widawsky
From: Adam Jackson This is about as minimal of a virtual GEM service as possible. My plan is to use this with non-native-3D hardware for buffer sharing between X and DRI. The current drisw winsys assumes an unmodified X server, which means it's hopelessly inefficient for both

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-08 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:19:27 +0100, Ben Widawsky wrote: > From: Adam Jackson > +static void vgem_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > +{ > + if (obj->map_list.map) > + drm_gem_free_mmap_offset(obj); > + > + drm_gem_object_release(obj); > +}

[PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com This is about as minimal of a virtual GEM service as possible. My plan is to use this with non-native-3D hardware for buffer sharing between X and DRI. The current drisw winsys assumes an unmodified X server, which means it's hopelessly inefficient for both

Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/vgem: virtual GEM provider

2012-02-08 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:19:27 +0100, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com +static void vgem_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object *obj) +{ + if (obj-map_list.map) + drm_gem_free_mmap_offset(obj); + + drm_gem_object_release(obj); +}