Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:25, Simon Ser wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16th, 2023 at 10:11, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > > Btw. does this also mean that if you use GETFB2 to get handle A, you > > export that as dmabuf and import in the same open device instance, you > > again get handle A? > >

Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-16 Thread Daniel Stone
Hi, On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 09:25, Simon Ser wrote: > On Thursday, February 16th, 2023 at 10:11, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > Btw. does this also mean that if you use GETFB2 to get handle A, you > > export that as dmabuf and import in the same open device instance, you > > again get handle A? >

Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-16 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:25:38 + Simon Ser wrote: > On Thursday, February 16th, 2023 at 10:11, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > > Btw. does this also mean that if you use GETFB2 to get handle A, you > > export that as dmabuf and import in the same open device instance, you > > again get handle

Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-16 Thread Simon Ser
On Thursday, February 16th, 2023 at 10:11, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Btw. does this also mean that if you use GETFB2 to get handle A, you > export that as dmabuf and import in the same open device instance, you > again get handle A? I haven't tested it, but I believe that is correct. > IOW, you

Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-16 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:03:54 + Simon Ser wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15th, 2023 at 14:41, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > > I didn't know it was at all possible to have different GEM handles > > pointing to the same object. DMABUF import is guaranteed to return the > > existing GEM

Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-15 Thread Simon Ser
On Wednesday, February 15th, 2023 at 14:41, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > I didn't know it was at all possible to have different GEM handles > pointing to the same object. DMABUF import is guaranteed to return the > existing GEM handle, right? Why is GETFB2 different? Why does it not > have the same

Re: [PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-15 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:42:00 + Simon Ser wrote: > There are two important details missing from the docs: > > - If the memory object backing the FB already has a GEM handle, > it's not re-used, a new one is generated. > - Aliased planes will return the same GEM handle. > > Signed-off-by:

[PATCH] drm: document expectations for GETFB2 handles

2023-02-15 Thread Simon Ser
There are two important details missing from the docs: - If the memory object backing the FB already has a GEM handle, it's not re-used, a new one is generated. - Aliased planes will return the same GEM handle. Signed-off-by: Simon Ser Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Pekka Paalanen ---