[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dri-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support
From:       "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit () intel ! com>
Date:       2021-03-12 5:58:07
Message-ID: 87y2esj4ls.wl-ashutosh.dixit () intel ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:31:33 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> wrote:
>  On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
>  libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default
>  when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22
>  which landed Mar 2, 2010.  The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time
>  both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end.  The SNA back-end
>  for X11 has always used execbuffer2.
>
>  Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net>
>  ---
>  .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c    | 100 ------------------
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h    |   2 -
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c               |   2 +-
>  3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-)
>
>  Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in
>  include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too?
>
> I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a
> comment is in order?

No, should be ok since we are using drm_invalid_op(). If we want to delete
the unused 'struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer' we can do that by converting
from DRM_IOW to DRM_IO in the DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER #define.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]