Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

>>> On 27.01.17 at 09:11, wrote: > BTW, what do you think about adding FB functionality into DISPLIF protocol? > > Of course it will duplicate FB, but allow future extensions I have no particular opinion here, other than my general dislike of duplication / redundancy. Jan

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

BTW, what do you think about adding FB functionality into DISPLIF protocol? Of course it will duplicate FB, but allow future extensions On 01/27/2017 09:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 26.01.17 at 19:39, wrote: Does the below answer your question? I think that's fine, once

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

>>> On 26.01.17 at 19:39, wrote: > Does the below answer your question? I think that's fine, once added to the actual patch description. Jan > On 01/05/2017 08:07 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >> On 01/05/2017 06:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.01.17 at 17:03,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

Hi, Jan! Does the below answer your question? Thank you, Oleksandr On 01/05/2017 08:07 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 01/05/2017 06:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 05.01.17 at 17:03, wrote: On 01/05/2017 05:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 22.12.16 at 09:12,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

As agreed on PV call PFA pahole results On 12/22/2016 10:12 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko This protocol aims to provide a unified protocol which fits more sophisticated use-cases than a framebuffer device can handle. At the

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

On 01/05/2017 06:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 05.01.17 at 17:03, wrote: On 01/05/2017 05:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 22.12.16 at 09:12, wrote: Other than that the primary thing I'm missing (as I think I've mentioned elsewhere already) is a rationale

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

>>> On 05.01.17 at 17:03, wrote: > On 01/05/2017 05:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 22.12.16 at 09:12, wrote: >> Other than that the primary thing I'm missing (as I think I've >> mentioned elsewhere already) is a rationale of why this new >> protocol is

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

On 01/05/2017 05:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 22.12.16 at 09:12, wrote: +struct xendispl_pg_flip_evt { +uint64_t fb_cookie; Considering that apparently all operations have this cookie, I think it would better go ... +}; + +struct xendispl_req { +uint16_t id; +

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

>>> On 22.12.16 at 09:12, wrote: > +struct xendispl_pg_flip_evt { > +uint64_t fb_cookie; Considering that apparently all operations have this cookie, I think it would better go ... > +}; > + > +struct xendispl_req { > +uint16_t id; > +uint8_t operation; > +

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

Bug fix On 12/22/2016 10:12 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko This is the ABI for the two halves of a para-virtualized display driver. Changes since initial: * DRM changed to DISPL, protocol made generic * major re-work

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko This is the ABI for the two halves of a para-virtualized display driver. Changes since initial: * DRM changed to DISPL, protocol made generic * major re-work addressing issues raised for sndif Signed-off-by: Oleksandr

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko This protocol aims to provide a unified protocol which fits more sophisticated use-cases than a framebuffer device can handle. At the moment basic functionality is supported with the intention to extend: o multiple dynamically