On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Stéphane Marchesin <marc...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> So, I've been advocating that for android, gallium drivers use >>>> gralloc_drm_pipe, since with android it seems like you end up with >>>> both gralloc and libGL in the same process, and having both share the >>>> same pipe_screen avoids lots of headaches with multiple gem handles >>>> pointing to same underlying buffer. >>>> >>>> But the awkward thing is that gralloc_drm_pipe is using gallium APIs >>>> that aren't particularly intended to be used out-of-tree. Ie. not >>>> really stable APIs. At the time, the thing that made sense to me was >>>> to pull drm_gralloc into mesa. But at the time, there were no >>>> non-mesa users of drm_gralloc, which isn't really true anymore. >>>> >>>> Maybe what makes more sense now is to implement a gralloc state >>>> tracker, which exposes a stable API for drm_gralloc? It would mostly >>>> be a shim to expose gallium import/export/transfer APIs in a stable >>>> way, but would also be where the code that figures out which driver to >>>> use to create/get the pipe_screen. >>> >>> and actually, we might just be able to use XA state tracker for this.. >>> I think it exposes all the necessary import/export/etc stuff that >>> gralloc would need.. >> >> Rob and I discussed this a bit more F2F recently. An alternative we >> discussed would be using GBM instead. GBM seems more inline with >> gralloc needs. This would also have the advantage of working with >> minigbm as well for non-mesa cases. Any thoughts on GBM vs. XA? > > gbm as it is misses some bits, for example lock/unlock, and more fine > grained usage flags.
I think this can be implemented on top within gralloc as it is today with drm_gralloc. However, I found a bigger mismatch is there are no explicit map/unmap calls in GBM. A writeable buffer will be a dumb buffer and is implicitly mapped. Maybe that is enough in reality? Rob _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev