On 22 May 2015 at 02:54, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 06:07 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> For actual sharing of buffers with other drivers (ie. actual hardware)
>>> we'll need to pimp things out a bit better to deal w/ caching
On 05/21/2015 06:07 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> For actual sharing of buffers with other drivers (ie. actual hardware)
>> we'll need to pimp things out a bit better to deal w/ caching, multiple
>> memory domains, etc. See thread:
>>
>>
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> For actual sharing of buffers with other drivers (ie. actual hardware)
> we'll need to pimp things out a bit better to deal w/ caching, multiple
> memory domains, etc. See thread:
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/20
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:07:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> > For actual sharing of buffers with other drivers (ie. actual hardware)
> > we'll need to pimp things out a bit better to deal w/ caching, multiple
> > memory domains, etc.
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:07:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> > For actual sharing of buffers with other drivers (ie. actual hardware)
>> > we'll need to pimp things out a bit
For actual sharing of buffers with other drivers (ie. actual hardware)
we'll need to pimp things out a bit better to deal w/ caching, multiple
memory domains, etc. See thread:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-May/083160.html
But for the llvmpipe use-case this isn't a proble
