On 16 March 2017 at 10:48, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hey Emil,
>
> On 13 March 2017 at 18:03, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 10 March 2017 at 15:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> Honestly, I don't think it makes any practical difference.
Hey Emil,
On 13 March 2017 at 18:03, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 at 15:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> Honestly, I don't think it makes any practical difference. The dumb
>> buffer itself has a reference held by the fb, so won't actually get
Hi Dan,
On 10 March 2017 at 15:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hey Emil,
>
> On 9 March 2017 at 23:51, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 3 March 2017 at 23:05, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> +static void
>>> +drm_fb_destroy_dumb(struct drm_fb
Hey Emil,
On 9 March 2017 at 23:51, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 3 March 2017 at 23:05, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> +static void
>> +drm_fb_destroy_dumb(struct drm_fb *fb)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_mode_destroy_dumb destroy_arg;
>> +
>> +
On 3 March 2017 at 23:05, Daniel Stone wrote:
> From: Tomohito Esaki
>
> The drm_fb destroy callback to mostly the same thing regardless of
> whether the buffer is a dumb buffer or gbm buffer. This patch refactors
> the common parts into a new function
From: Tomohito Esaki
The drm_fb destroy callback to mostly the same thing regardless of
whether the buffer is a dumb buffer or gbm buffer. This patch refactors
the common parts into a new function that can be called for both cases.
[daniels: Rebased on top of fb->fd changes,