On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:24:42 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > I'm not sure I agree regarding the vgpu statement, maybe this is not > > dmabuf specific, but what makes it vgpu specific? We need to > > separate > > our current usage plans from what it's actually describing and I > > don't > > see that it describes anything vgpu specific. > > Well, it describes a framebuffer, what non-graphic device would need > that? Graphics is not necessarily vgpu though, which is my point. It should not be named after our intended use case (vgpu), it should be named after what it's describing (a framebuffer, or graphics plane). Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
