I mailing list; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> > I think I already used reservation stuff any time in that way exc
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> I think I already used reservation stuff any time in that way except
> ww-mutex. And I'm not sure that embedded system really needs ww-mutex. If
> there is any case,
> could you tell me the case? I really need more advice and understanding :)
If
rk; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Mes
..@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-fbdev-
> > > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rob Clark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:48 AM
> > > To: Inki Dae
> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho;
> Kyungmin
> > > Par
;> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho; Kyungmin
>> Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
>> linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
: Inki Dae
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho; Kyungmin
> > Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> > linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchroniz
27;; 'linux-fbdev'; 'YoungJun Cho'; 'Kyungmin
>> Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
>> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>&g
iling list; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >>
rk; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been
gt; Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Hey,
>
> Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae schreef:
> > Hi all,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
>> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
>> operation relevant codes
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
> operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
> coupling t
Hey,
Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
> operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
> coupling those tw
Hi all,
I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
coupling those two things, synchronizing caches and buffer access betwe
un Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@
'Rob Clark'; 'linux-fbdev'; 'DRI mailing list';
>> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'; linux-arm-
>> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffe
t; 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:03:06PM +0900, Inki Dae wro
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:03:06PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > - Integration of fence syncing into dma_buf. Imo we should have a
> > per-attachment mode which decides whether map/unmap (and the new sync)
> > should wait for fences or whether the driver takes care of syncing
> > through the new
.@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:13:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 03:47:43PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > > 2013/5/15
t; >> YoungJun
> > > >> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer
> > > >> synchronization
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, May 13, 2
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:39 PM
> > >> To: Inki Dae
> > >> Cc: linux-fbdev; DRI mailing list; Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun
> > >> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > >> Subject: Re: In
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> So while it seems nice and orthogonal/clean to couple cache and
> synchronization and handle dma->cpu and cpu->cpu and cpu->dma in the
> same generic way, but I think in practice we have to make things more
> complex than they otherwise need to b
.ham; YoungJun
>> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> >> well, for cache management, I think it is a bet
.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
> >> really catch that this was the motivation from the initial
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
>> really catch that this was the motivation from the initial patch, but
>> maybe I read it too quickly. But cache can be decoupled from
>> synchronization, because CPU access i
.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/13 Rob Clark
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> >
>
tter'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> > ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org;
> > 'linux-fbdev';
> > 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> > Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>
> 2013/5/13 Rob Clark
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> >
>> >> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences.
>> >> I
>> >> don't see any way that can end well.
>> >> What if userspace never si
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences. I
>> don't see any way that can end well.
>> What if userspace never signals? What if userspace gets killed by oom
>> killer. Who keeps track of that?
>>
>
> In all cases,
t'; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; 'linux-fbdev';
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 13-05-13 13:24, Ink
Op 13-05-13 13:24, Inki Dae schreef:
>> and can be solved with userspace locking primitives. No need for the
>> kernel to get involved.
>>
> Yes, that is how we have synchronized buffer between CPU and DMA device
> until now without buffer synchronization mechanism. I thought that it's best
> to ma
d.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; 'linux-fbdev';
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 13-05-13 11:21, Inki Dae schreef:
> >
> >> -Original M
ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev;
>> Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun Cho
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>>
>> Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>&
v;
> Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun Cho
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
> >
Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
> purpose of this post is to collect other opinions and advices before RFC
> posting.
>
> First of all, this helper framework, called fence helper, is in progress
> yet so migh
35 matches
Mail list logo
