From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com (Alexey Brodkin) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:47:50 +0000 Subject: xf86-video-armada via UDL [was: Re: UDL's fbdev doesn't work for user-space apps] In-Reply-To: <335eaaa2-b209-fb60-392f-93036050b406@synopsys.com> References: <1512387175.4977.24.camel@synopsys.com> <86238def-82be-2ad1-63d0-b9a8dbf83db6@synopsys.com> <1512393408.4977.44.camel@synopsys.com> <1512399218.4977.48.camel@synopsys.com> <1512403237.4977.54.camel@synopsys.com> <232eae49-ddbb-fd87-2b35-6db47817e23e@synopsys.com> <1512408586.4977.73.camel@synopsys.com> <1512474815.4977.90.camel@synopsys.com> <335eaaa2-b209-fb60-392f-93036050b406@synopsys.com> List-ID: Message-ID: <1512485269.4977.131.camel@synopsys.com> To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org Hi Jose, On Tue, 2017-12-05@12:26 +0000, Jose Abreu wrote: > On 05-12-2017 11:53, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > > > > From my note above about udl_drm_gem_mmap() being only used in case of Xserver > > I barely may conclude anything. Given my lack of knowledge of DRM guts > > especially > > when it comes to complicated cases with DMA buffer exports/imports I cannot say > > immediately if that's just improper implementation of > > udl_drm_gem_mmap() or not. > > Even though I do see some differences between implementation of file_operations->mmap() > > callback in UDL and > > say exynos_drm_gem_mmap() or qxl_mmap() it's not clear > > why this and that implementation was done. > > Oh, I've seen this before. This is the same thing that arcpgu > used to do in the mmap callback! Please comment out the call to > update_vm_cache_attr() in the mmap callback and check if it works. Actually I did it as the first thing when I spotted it in?udl_drm_gem_mmap(). But that made no difference at all :( -Alexey