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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to