lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:53:05 +0100
From:	Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>
To:	Terje Bergström <tbergstrom@...dia.com>
Cc:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arto Merilainen <amerilainen@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 8/8] drm: tegra: Add gr2d device

Am Freitag, den 30.11.2012, 09:44 +0200 schrieb Terje Bergström:
> On 29.11.2012 14:14, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:09:13AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote:
> >> This way you would also be able to construct different handles (like GEM
> >> obj or V4L2 buffers) from the same backing nvhost object. Note that I'm
> >> not sure how useful this would be, but it seems like a reasonable design
> >> to me being able to do so.
> > 
> > Wouldn't that be useful for sharing buffers between DRM and V4L2 using
> > dma-buf? I'm not very familiar with how exactly importing and exporting
> > work with dma-buf, so maybe I need to read up some more.
> 
> I would still preserve the dma-buf support, for exactly this purpose.
> 
dma-buf is useful and should be preserved, as some userspace like
gstreamer might rely on us being able to import/export dma-buf handles
at some time. At the very latest we'll need it if someone wants to run a
UDL device to scanout a buffer rendered to by the internal GPU.

What I'm saying is just that with a common allocator we could cut down a
lot on the usage of dma-buf, where not really necessary. Also you might
be able to do some optimisations based on the fact that a dma-buf handle
exported for some V4L2 buffer, which gets imported into DRM to construct
a GEM object, is the very same nvhost object in the end.

Regards,
Lucas

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ