On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:44 AM Christian König <
ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 02.06.21 um 10:57 schrieb Daniel Stone:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 13:51, Christian König
> > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Am 01.06.21 um 14:30 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>> If you want to enable this use-case with driver magic and without the
> >>> compositor being aware of what's going on, the solution is EGLStreams.
> >>> Not sure we want to go there, but it's definitely a lot more feasible
> >>> than trying to stuff eglstreams semantics into dma-buf implicit
> >>> fencing support in a desperate attempt to not change compositors.
> >> Well not changing compositors is certainly not something I would try
> >> with this use case.
> >>
> >> Not changing compositors is more like ok we have Ubuntu 20.04 and need
> >> to support that we the newest hardware generation.
> > Serious question, have you talked to Canonical?
> >
> > I mean there's a hell of a lot of effort being expended here, but it
> > seems to all be predicated on the assumption that Ubuntu's LTS
> > HWE/backport policy is totally immutable, and that we might need to
> > make the kernel do backflips to work around that. But ... is it? Has
> > anyone actually asked them how they feel about this?
>
> This was merely an example. What I wanted to say is that we need to
> support system already deployed.
>
> In other words our customers won't accept that they need to replace the
> compositor just because they switch to a new hardware generation.
>
> > I mean, my answer to the first email is 'no, absolutely not' from the
> > technical perspective (the initial proposal totally breaks current and
> > future userspace), from a design perspective (it breaks a lot of
> > usecases which aren't single-vendor GPU+display+codec, or aren't just
> > a simple desktop), and from a sustainability perspective (cutting
> > Android adrift again isn't acceptable collateral damage to make it
> > easier to backport things to last year's Ubuntu release).
> >
> > But then again, I don't even know what I'm NAKing here ... ? The
> > original email just lists a proposal to break a ton of things, with
> > proposed replacements which aren't technically viable, and it's not
> > clear why? Can we please have some more details and some reasoning
> > behind them?
> >
> > I don't mind that userspace (compositor, protocols, clients like Mesa
> > as well as codec APIs) need to do a lot of work to support the new
> > model. I do really care though that the hard-binary-switch model works
> > fine enough for AMD but totally breaks heterogeneous systems and makes
> > it impossible for userspace to do the right thing.
>
> Well how the handling for new Android, distributions etc... is going to
> look like is a completely different story.
>
> And I completely agree with both Daniel Vetter and you that we need to
> keep this in mind when designing the compatibility with older software.
>
> For Android I'm really not sure what to do. In general Android is
> already trying to do the right thing by using explicit sync, the problem
> is that this is build around the idea that this explicit sync is
> syncfile kernel based.
>
> Either we need to change Android and come up with something that works
> with user fences as well or we somehow invent a compatibility layer for
> syncfile as well.
>

What's the issue with syncfiles that syncobjs don't suffer from?

Marek