On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 09:25:49 +0100 Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Should we then specify the error code for "head doesn't exist" vs > > "head > > doesn't support dmabuf", with the former taking precedence? Perhaps > > -ENODEV vs -EINVAL. > > NODEV for "head doesn't exist" and INVAL for "head doesn't support > dmabuf/region/..." ? Yes, exactly. > > Are the heads guaranteed to be contiguous (the > > first -ENODEV is the end of possible heads)? > > Yes, I think the valid heads should be contignous. The guest might > still only use a non-contignous subset of the available heads though. Yep, I agree. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
