On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:18:03AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:00:04AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:30:47PM +0530, Sharma, Shashank wrote: > >> > > On 11/15/2016 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:26:08PM +0530, Sharma, Shashank wrote: > >> > > > > In any case, I guess addition of a cap for aspect ratio should fix the > >> > > > > current objections for this implementation. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > And I will keep it 0 by default, so that no aspect ratio information is > >> > > > > added until userspace sets the cap to 1 on its own. > >> > > > Note that cap = needs new userspace. > >> > > > -Daniel > >> > > I guess you mean a new libdrm, so yes, I will add this new cap in libdrm. > >> > > Is that what you mean ? > >> > > >> > Full stack solution, including enabling in an Xorg driver (or somewhere > >> > else, we also have drm_hwcomposer as an option). > >> > > >> > And because that's probably going to take forever I'm leaning towards > >> > revert again. Ville? > >> > >> Yeah I guess we'll need to push the revert to avoid the regression. > >> Trying to put in new client caps and whatnot after -rc5 doesn't seem > >> like a viable option to me. > > > > Yeah, a few days left to get userspace in line is just not enough. Agreed > > and reverts applied. > > > > Is there any way we can add the new CEA modes and worry about handling > the aspect ratio stuff later? I don't think there's any dependency between the two. Or am I overlooking something? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
