On 05-Jun-2004, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 12:41:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > I'm not sure about that; pseudo-command buffers that the DRM parses and > > generates the actual DMA buffers from on the fly might be better for > > security and/or performance reasons. > > Quite possible. Though I'm not totally convinced of the performace > argument since the kernel would then have to build all of the buffers from > scratch. With real buffers we could just check which register the value is > for and if there are no problems with that register the value could be > passed as is. > > And one major problem with pseudo buffers is that they should not impose > any nasty limits on what we can do. So the design would have to be good > from the start.
Well, wouldnt it be easier to deal with state management if the kernel is abstracting the entire buffer interface? > > I wonder if we can reasonably get there in a backwards compatible way... > > I think the current DRM interface could be moved on top of the new one. > Maybe as a separate compatibility module... Yeah, that could be possible. Old DRI using apps would never know the difference... -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature