On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > The description would be a little easier to follow if you didn't use the > term "map" both for > mmap-ing and AGP binding.
Yeah, using unique terms for each map is a good idea. > Anyway, the above would probably work but for Intel UMA only, > as other driver writers would have to deal with switching caching policy > and VRAM copies as well, and either not use shmem objects or > short-circuit their mapping / fault methods. This is for the Intel driver, which is UMA only. > The Linux mm people are very strongly against having a driver > manipulating ptes directly. I'm always interested in coming up with the cleanest and most natural interface, independent of arbitrary objections. > and that's why TTM > needs to manage a fake linear address space for the drm fd. Managing a fake linear address space just to match some existing arbitrary API requirements is insane. Creating the right interface for my UMA environment is my goal. I'm not sure precisely what that API should be, but at least this one is obviously wrong. I want to handle thousands of discrete objects and be able to map them independently into my process, and bind them independently to the GTT. Only a few will ever be mapped to my process and while all of them will be bound to the GTT at times, only a subset will fit at any particular time. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
