From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754812Ab1BXACJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:02:09 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:60400 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753042Ab1BXACI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:02:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:01:55 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Dave Airlie Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gma500: Intel GMA500 staging driver Message-ID: <20110224000155.GA32282@kroah.com> References: <20110222121704.19437.4650.stgit@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:51:04AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > > This is an initial staging driver for the GMA500. It's been stripped out > > of the PVR drivers and crunched together from various bits of code and > > different kernels. > > > > Currently it's unaccelerated but still pretty snappy even compositing with > > the frame buffer X server. > > > > Lots of work is needed to rework the ttm and bo interfaces from being > > ripped out and then 2D acceleration wants putting back for framebuffer and > > somehow eventually via DRM. > > > > There is no support for the parts without open source userspace (video > > accelerators, 3D) as per kernel policy. > > > > I'm not a DRM expert so if there is anyone with a GMA500 who actually knows > > something about DRI internals then help would be most welcome. > > > > > Okay I'm okay with this going into staging but we should work out a > plan for it going forward. Good as I just added it to the staging-next tree a few hours ago :) > I don't have any poulsbo hw but if some were to appear I could > probably expend effort on this. > > So where do we want to go my opinion is > > a) remove all userspace interfaces and simplify ttm memory management usage. > b) add support to hook this up to the dumb ioctl so we can do trivial > generic front buffer allocation, so then a libkms + dumb kms > modesetting driver can work on it. > c) figure out how to add interface for acceleration users. Whether TTM > fence interfaces are required etc. That all sounds reasonable to me. Patches now gladly accepted. thanks, greg k-h