On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Dave Airlie [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

But then we'd need a different set of accessors for every different
drm/v4l/etc driver, wouldn't we?

Not any more different than you need for this, you just have a new
interface that you request a sw object from,
then mmap that object, and underneath it knows who owns it in the kernel.

oh, ok, so you are talking about a kernel level interface, rather than
userspace..

but I guess in this case I don't quite see the difference.  It amounts
to which fd you call mmap (or ioctl[*]) on..  If you use the dmabuf fd
directly then you don't have to pass around a 2nd fd.

[*] there is nothing stopping defining some dmabuf ioctls (such as for
synchronization).. although the thinking was to keep it simple for
first version of dmabuf

BR,
-R

mmap just feels wrong in this API, which is a buffer sharing API not a
buffer mapping API.

quoted

I guess if sharing a buffer between multiple drm devices, there is
nothing stopping you from having some NOT_DMABUF_MMAPABLE flag you
pass when the buffer is allocated, then you don't have to support
dmabuf->mmap(), and instead mmap via device and use some sort of
DRM_CPU_PREP/FINI ioctls for synchronization..

Or we could make a generic CPU accessor that we don't have to worry about.

Dave.