LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Simmons <>
To: Dave Airlie <>
Cc: Greg KH <>,,
Subject: Re: gpu sharing layer for kernel
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:42:16 +0000 (GMT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

> > > Why do we want this?
> > >
> > > Currently the kernel cannot provide both the fb and drm drivers with
> > > access to the device model and this means the drm cannot get any
> > > suspend/resume callbacks.  This layer attempts to fix this problem by
> > > adding a bus for the gpu drivers to attach to. Currently a lowlevel
> > > binding driver is needed along with optional fb and drm components.
> > 
> > If we were to allow this kind of "sharing" for all PCI devices would
> > that work out instead?  Or would this layer still be needed?
> Initially this layer wouldn't be needed, but I'd like to add some
> awareness to the drivers, so the drm can tell the fb to stop doing
> stuff and vice-versa if necessary....  but perhaps that could be done
> with a generic layer also.. or via the lowlevel driver I have...

	I have a idea. Greg asked me to move my display class away from the 
class_device method. One of the nice things about using 
class_device_register is that it handles all the attributes for you :-)
So while going throught the core code for device handling I discovered
that struct device has a struct class. I found it alot easier to have 
class field in the device point to the class you want to use. With 
device registeration the class is setup up for you. 
	The idea was to have the a linked list of classes inside of 
struct device. Then have a way to register/unregister that class with
the device. This way struct device and struct device_driver are per 
hardware but struct class could be used to handle different interfaces
to that same hardware. What do you think? I could do a example with 
hardware that registers a fbdev drivers as well as a backlight. Plus
nobody is using the class field in struct device at this time.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-02-07 18:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-24 11:20 airlied
2007-01-24 11:20 ` [PATCH] gpu: Initial gpu layer addition airlied
2007-01-24 11:20   ` [PATCH] gpu/radeon: add a radeon lowlevel GPU driver airlied
2007-01-24 11:20     ` [PATCH] gpu/radeonfb: add GPU support to radeonfb airlied
2007-01-24 11:20       ` [PATCH] gpu/drm: Add GPU layer support to generic DRM airlied
2007-01-24 11:20         ` [PATCH] drm/gpu/radeon: Add radeon DRM support to use GPU layer airlied
2007-01-25  0:07       ` [PATCH] gpu/radeonfb: add GPU support to radeonfb Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-01-30 19:50         ` Dave Airlie
2007-01-24 21:46 ` gpu sharing layer for kernel Greg KH
2007-01-24 22:39   ` Dave Airlie
2007-01-25 22:06     ` Greg KH
2007-01-28 21:16       ` Dave Jones
2007-02-07 18:42     ` James Simmons [this message]
2007-02-06 19:40   ` James Simmons
2007-01-25  7:56 ` Paul Collins
2007-01-30 19:49   ` Dave Airlie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: gpu sharing layer for kernel' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).