On 08/26/2015 11:51 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:32:30AM -0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote: >> On 08/26/2015 09:58 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> The other is that right now there's no user nor implementation in sight >>> which actually does range-based flush optimizations, so I'm pretty much >>> expecting we'll get it wrong. Maybe instead we should go one step further >>> and remove the range from the internal dma-buf interface and also drop it >> >from the ioctl? With the flags we can always add something later on once >>> we have a real user with a clear need for it. But afaik cros only wants to >>> shuffle around entire tiles and has a buffer-per-tile approach. >> >> Thomas, I think Daniel has a point here and also, I wouldn't mind removing >> all range control from the dma-buf ioctl either. > > if we go with nuking it from the ioctl I'd suggest to also nuke it from > the dma-buf internal inferface first too.
yep, I can do it. Thomas, so we leave 2d sync out now? Tiago
