Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 2/2] drm/i915: Create dumb buffer from LMEM

[Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>]

On 2019-12-09 at 12:03:22 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Ramalingam C (2019-12-09 11:57:01)
> > On 2019-12-05 at 13:11:29 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Ramalingam C (2019-12-05 13:02:40)
> > > > On 2019-12-05 at 12:20:12 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-12-05 12:12:19)
> > > > > > We would still need to clear the object(maybe I915_BO_ALLOC_CLEARED?)
> > > > > > in order to pass the IGTs. We also need to adjust dumb_buffer.c, since
> > > > > > that uses get_avail_ram_mb() for always_clear, but maybe we need the
> > > > > > query region uapi for that?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm. Questions over the maximum size for dumb buffer, maximum number of
> > > > > dumb buffers, etc, should be addressed to the dumb API. So some form of
> > > > > drmGetCap() ?
> > > > Chris, Is this suggestion to add this capability probing through a new IOCTL for
> > > > dumb APIs? Please clarify.
> > > 
> > > I don't think we need a new ioctl, as drm_getcap already covers the dumb
> > > buffer API. We just need to expose the limits of the dumb buffer API
> > > through it.
> > > 
> > > The 2 that spring to mind are maximum size of individual buffer and
> > > maximum size of total dumb buffers.
> > 
> > Will there be question for userspace for this extension or no?
> > AFAIK There is no consumer except IGT.
> 
> There was someone else asking for maximum dumb buffer size on irc from
> an application perspective.
> 
> But I strongly believe that discoverability and testability of an API
> should be a central tenet of API design. :)
So can i take it for "No userspace is required for this uAPI extension
as this helps the testing" ?

-Ram
> -Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx