Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-21 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/20/2017 08:52 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/20/2017 08:17 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/20/2017 07:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksan

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/20/2017 08:52 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/20/2017 08:17 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/20/2017 07:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksan

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/20/2017 08:17 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/20/2017 07:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksa

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hello, I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor and it now works with DRM CMA helpers, but I would also like to make it work with non-contigous memory: virtual machine

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/20/2017 07:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hello, I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor and it now w

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > On 03/20/2017 08:17 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko >> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/20/2017 07:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko >

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > On 03/20/2017 07:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchen

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > > On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor >>> and it now works with DRM CM

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-19 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/18/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hi, Rob On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hello, I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor and

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-19 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
On 03/18/2017 04:50 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: then TTM might be useful. I was looking into it, but it seems to be an overkill in my case And isn't it that GEM should be used for new drivers, not TTM? Not really, it's just that

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-19 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
Hi, Rob On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hello, I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor and it now works with DRM CMA helpers, but I would also like to make it work with non-contigous memory: virtual

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-18 Thread Rob Clark
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: then TTM might be useful. >>> >>> I was looking into it, but it seems to be an overkill in my case >>> And isn't it that GEM should be used for new drivers, not TTM? >> >> Not really, it's just that (other than amdgpu which u

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-18 Thread Rob Clark
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > Hi, Rob > > On 03/18/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor >>> and it now works wit

Re: GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-18 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > Hello, > I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor > and it now works with DRM CMA helpers, but I would also like > to make it work with non-contigous memory: virtual machine > that the driver runs in can't guara

GEM allocation for para-virtualized DRM driver

2017-03-17 Thread Oleksandr Andrushchenko
Hello, I am writing a para-virtualized DRM driver for Xen hypervisor and it now works with DRM CMA helpers, but I would also like to make it work with non-contigous memory: virtual machine that the driver runs in can't guarantee that CMA is actually physically contigous (that is not a problem beca