Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC 1/2] dma-buf: Introduce dma buffer sharing mechanism

[Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But then we'd need a different set of accessors for every different
>> drm/v4l/etc driver, wouldn't we?
>
> Not any more different than you need for this, you just have a new
> interface that you request a sw object from,
> then mmap that object, and underneath it knows who owns it in the kernel.

oh, ok, so you are talking about a kernel level interface, rather than
userspace..

but I guess in this case I don't quite see the difference.  It amounts
to which fd you call mmap (or ioctl[*]) on..  If you use the dmabuf fd
directly then you don't have to pass around a 2nd fd.

[*] there is nothing stopping defining some dmabuf ioctls (such as for
synchronization).. although the thinking was to keep it simple for
first version of dmabuf

BR,
-R

> mmap just feels wrong in this API, which is a buffer sharing API not a
> buffer mapping API.
>
>> I guess if sharing a buffer between multiple drm devices, there is
>> nothing stopping you from having some NOT_DMABUF_MMAPABLE flag you
>> pass when the buffer is allocated, then you don't have to support
>> dmabuf->mmap(), and instead mmap via device and use some sort of
>> DRM_CPU_PREP/FINI ioctls for synchronization..
>
> Or we could make a generic CPU accessor that we don't have to worry about.
>
> Dave.
>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>