Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1673698
| From | Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations |
| Date | 2017-06-23 19:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVApr-51a-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <tULGh-5kK-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tUT17-1FF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tV5OG-29T-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tVfuF-5s-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tVrcu-7CL-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:26:59 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Is this only going to support accelerated driver output, not basic > > VGA > > modes for BIOS interaction? > > Right now there is no vgabios or uefi support for the vgpu. > > But even with that in place there still is the problem that the display > device initialization happens before the guest runs and therefore there > isn't an plane yet ... > > > > Right now the experimental intel patches throw errors in case no > > > plane > > > exists (yet). Maybe we should have a "bool is_enabled" field in > > > the > > > plane_info struct, so drivers can use that to signal whenever the > > > guest > > > has programmed a valid video mode or not (likewise for the cursor, > > > which doesn't exist with fbcon, only when running xorg). With that > > > in > > > place using the QUERY_PLANE ioctl also for probing looks > > > reasonable. > > > > Sure, or -ENOTTY for ioctl not implemented vs -EINVAL for no > > available > > plane, but then that might not help the user know how a plane would > > be > > available if it were available. > > So maybe a "enum plane_state" (instead of "bool is_enabled")? So we > can clearly disturgish ENABLED, DISABLED, NOT_SUPPORTED cases? What's the difference between NOT_SUPPORTED and -ENOTTY on the ioctl? Perhaps a bit in a flags field could specify EN/DIS-ABLED and leave room for things we're forgetting. Keep in mind that we need to use explicit width fields for a uapi structure, so __u32 vs enum. Thanks, Alex
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-06-20 10:50 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-20 13:00 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-20 17:10 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> - 2017-06-20 19:10 +0200
RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-06-21 01:10 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 01:30 +0200
RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-06-21 11:30 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 13:10 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 21:00 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-22 10:40 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-22 21:00 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-23 09:30 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com> - 2017-06-23 10:10 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-23 10:40 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-23 18:50 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-23 19:20 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-26 08:20 +0200
RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-06-22 02:30 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 09:40 +0200
RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-06-24 00:00 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-26 08:40 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-06-26 19:30 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-27 08:20 +0200
RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-06-28 14:50 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> - 2017-06-29 08:50 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2017-06-29 10:40 +0200
csiph-web