Em 16-05-2011 17:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski escreveu:
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 18-04-2011 17:15, Jesse Barker escreveu:
One of the big issues we've been faced with at Linaro is around GPU and multimedia device integration, in particular the memory management requirements for supporting them on ARM. This next cycle, we'll be focusing on driving consensus around a unified memory management solution for embedded systems that support multiple architectures and SoCs. This is listed as part of our working set of requirements for the next six-month cycle (in spite of the URL, this is not being treated as a graphics-specific topic - we also have participation from multimedia and kernel working group folks):
https://wiki.linaro.org/Cycles/1111/TechnicalTopics/Graphics
As part of the memory management needs, Linaro organized several discussions during Linaro Development Summit (LDS), at Budapest, and invited me and other members of the V4L and DRI community to discuss about the requirements. I wish to thank Linaro for its initiative.
[snip]
Btw, the need of managing buffers is currently being covered by the proposal for new ioctl()s to support multi-sized video-buffers [1].
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg30869.html
It makes sense to me to discuss such proposal together with the above discussions, in order to keep the API consistent.
The author of that RFC would have been thankful, if he had been put on Cc: ;)
If I had added everybody interested on this summary, probably most smtp servers would refuse to deliver the message thinking that it is a SPAM ;) My intention were to submit a feedback about it when analysing your rfc patches, if you weren't able to see it before.
But anyway, yes, consistency is good, but is my understanding correct, that functionally these two extensions - multi-size and buffer-forwarding/reuse are independent?
Yes.
We have to think about making the APIs consistent, e.g., by reusing data structures. But it's also good to make incremental smaller changes where possible, isn't it? So, yes, we should think about consistency, but develop and apply those two extensions separately?
True, but one discussion can benefit the other. IMO, we should not rush new userspace API merges, to avoid merging a code that weren't reasonably discussed, as otherwise, the API will become too messy.
Thanks, Mauro.