On 5/9/25 08:51, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >>> +struct drm_gem_object *drm_gem_shmem_prime_import_no_sgt(struct drm_device >>> *dev, >>> + struct dma_buf *dma_buf) >> >> Please don't mention "no sgt" in the name, that we use sgtable is an >> implementation detail. >> >> Maybe use something like "no map" or similar. > > To be fair, I asked to not named it something like _vmap(), but rather > _no_sgt(). These vmap-only names purely describe a use case. I'd be OK with > any name that refers to the difference between the various functions; not > just their effect.
Yeah, but "no sgt" is as equally bad as vmap. I don't know a good naming of hand either. > > Unrelated to this series, we might reconsider > drm_driver.gem_prime_import_sg_table. If we move the call to > dma_buf_map_attachment_unlocked() into the callback and rename it to > gem_prime_import_attachment, using sg tables would become optional for all > drivers. SHMEM would be able to create the object without SG table without > having to reimplement the prime boiler-plate code. Thoughts? I'm not sure if that would actually be better, but calling dma_buf_map_attachment() should indeed only be done when necessary. For amdgpu we put that into the TTM TT backend (see function amdgpu_ttm_backend_bind) and I considered switching over radeon and nouveau as well but then just abandoned the plan as to much work. Regards, Christian.
