> > 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.
Isn't that also what you are trying to do with GEM though.. match GPU objects to the file interface. Now the thing is if you don't consider GTT mapping to be the same as normal mapping, you need an Intel specifc GTT map call, however that means a do_mmap you don't intend on ever changing to a real mmap call. Now you need to justify that to the vfs people. I do wonder if you are better having an alternate open method that flags the mmap different, but that doesn;'t make much sense to me either. However creating new MAP_GTT means berakign the generic interface. Dave. > 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
