> > I notice this had a print to stderr before with an assertion out, but
> > now it fails silently. Is this change of behaviour intentional?
>
> It is.
Alright! :-)
> > BO
> > creation would previously return a valid BO gauranteed. This is no
> > longer so obviously true -- although I see we l
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:31:04 -0400
Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
> > +static struct panfrost_bo *
> > +panfrost_bo_alloc(struct panfrost_screen *screen, size_t size,
> > + uint32_t flags)
> > +{
> ...
> > +ret = drmIoctl(screen->fd, DRM_IOCTL_PANFROST_CREATE_BO,
> > &create_
> +static struct panfrost_bo *
> +panfrost_bo_alloc(struct panfrost_screen *screen, size_t size,
> + uint32_t flags)
> +{
...
> +ret = drmIoctl(screen->fd, DRM_IOCTL_PANFROST_CREATE_BO, &create_bo);
> +if (ret)
> +return NULL;
I notice this had a pr
* BO related functions/structs are now exposed in pan_bo.h instead of
being spread in pan_screen.h/pan_resource.h
* cache related functions are no longer exposed
* panfrost_bo now has a ->screen field to avoid passing screen around
* the function names are made consistent (all BO related function
