Indeed, we argued at first to let the driver handle the ioctls directly, but we would like to use the DRM interface if possible.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > Quoting Marius Vlad (2017-09-04 16:16:41) > > From: Marius Vlad <marius.vl...@gmail.com> > > > > Currently driver-specific ioctls have to be declared static and are > confined to > > DRM core driver. This patch series provides the means to remove those > constrains > > and allow to register driver-specific ioctls dynamically by keeping a > list of > > registered ioctls in struct drm_driver, then each component of the > driver can > > then register its own specific ioctls using this interface. > > > > The driver must assign ioctl_register/ioctl_deregister in > > its drm_driver structure in order to make use of it. > > > > While SoC drivers benefit the most from this approach (by not polluting > DRM core > > driver and allowing sub drivers to implement and register driver-specific > > ioctls dynamically), further patches shows how easy is to convert > drm/i915 to > > this approach by registering GEM and perf ioctls separately. > > Why? > > You do not have to use drm_ioctl directly... Avoiding it would reduce > our ioctl overhead considerably, for example reducing busy_ioctl from > around 110ns to around 45ns. > -Chris > -- Marius Vlad
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
