Re: [PATCH v1] displif: add ABI for para-virtual display

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <andr2000@gmail.com>]

On 01/05/2017 05:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.12.16 at 09:12, <andr2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +struct xendispl_pg_flip_evt {
>> +    uint64_t fb_cookie;
> Considering that apparently all operations have this cookie, I think
> it would better go ...
>
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct xendispl_req {
>> +    uint16_t id;
>> +    uint8_t operation;
>> +    uint8_t reserved[5];
> ... here.
If someone adds another event which doesn't need it?
IMO, this is ok to reside where it is.
> Other than that the primary thing I'm missing (as I think I've
> mentioned elsewhere already) is a rationale of why this new
> protocol is needed (and the existing xenfb one can't be extended).
"This protocol aims to provide a unified protocol which fits more

sophisticated use-cases than a framebuffer device can handle. At the
moment basic functionality is supported with the intention to extend:
  o multiple dynamically allocated/destroyed framebuffers
  o buffers of arbitrary sizes
  o better configuration options including multiple display support"

I tried to evaluate what would it be like to extend existing fbif...
It looks like having 2 different protocols in a single file.
What is more fbif can be used together with displif running at the
same time, e.g. on Linux one provides framebuffer and another DRM

> Jan
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel