Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <andr2000@gmail.com>]

On 03/18/2017 04:50 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko
> <andr2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>     then TTM might be useful.
>>>> I was looking into it, but it seems to be an overkill in my case
>>>> And isn't it that GEM should be used for new drivers, not TTM?
>>> Not really, it's just that (other than amdgpu which uses TTM) all of
>>> the newer drivers have been unified memory.
>> Good to know, thank you
>>>     A driver for a new GPU
>>> that had vram of some sort should still use TTM.
>> our virtual GPU support is done on hypervisor level, so no changes to
>> existing GPU drivers. So, the only thing to care about is that the
>> buffers our DRM driver provides can be imported and used by that GPU
>> (there are other issues related to memory, e.g. if real GPU/firware can
>> see the memory of the guest, but this is another story)
>
> jfwiw, it might be useful to have a look at the intel GVT stuff.. they
> have recently (4.10) added para-virt support to i915
hm, thank you, I'll have a look at it (what is more when
I'm not using ARM I'm playing with x86+i915, so it can be handy)
> BR,
> -R

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel