On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rob Clark rob@ti.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Semwal, Sumit sumit.semwal@ti.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> >> >> Hence for both patches: >> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > > Yeah I'm with Daniel, I like this one, I can definitely build the drm > buffer sharing layer on top of this. > > How do we see this getting merged? I'm quite happy to push it to Linus > if we don't have an identified path, though it could go via a Linaro > tree as well. > > so feel free to add: > Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Thanks Daniel and Dave!
I guess we can start with staging for 3.3, and see how it shapes up. I will post the latest patch version pretty soon.
not sure about staging, but could make sense to mark as experimental.
Thanks, I will mark it experimental for the first version; we can remove that once it is more widely used and tested.
Arnd, Dave: do you have any preference on the path it takes to get merged? In my mind, Linaro tree might make more sense, but I would leave it upto you gentlemen.
Looks like Dave is making some progress on drm usage of buffer sharing between gpu's.. if that is ready to go in at the same time, it might be a bit logistically simpler for him to put dmabuf in the same pull req. I don't have strong preference one way or another, so do what is collectively simpler ;-)
:) Right - I am quite happy for it to get merged in either ways :)
BR, -R
Best regards, ~Sumit.