Re: Proposal on WSDISPLAYIO damage reporting IOCTL

Michael <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.devel.kernel
Message-ID <20250513083314.6ba9e881@bushmills>
Hello,

On Tue, 13 May 2025 08:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mouse <[email protected]> wrote:

> > While implementing X11 userspace support for viogpu, I identified a
> > need for a unified WSDISPLAYIO mechanism to report framebuffer damage
> > areas to drivers.  [...]  
> 
> This design bothers me a little.  It feels to me like a shadow
> framebuffer with a push mechanism - with the shadow moved into the
> kernel.  This then leads me to ask: why is the shadow in the kernel
> instead of being in userland?

No, the shadow is in userland, the update is done by the kernel.
This is useful for:
- hardware where we don't have direct access to the framebuffer, or
  where access is prohibitively slow so it needs to be bundled into
  fewer, larger updates. Like USB graphics devices.
- virtualized hardware, where the visible framebuffer may well be a
  window on the host, outside the VM's address space. If we tell the
  hypervisor what we changed it needs fewer, smaller updates.

have fun
Michael
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.