On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> DPMS should be an error anyway, we want that to be able to properly >> thread the acquire_ctx EDEADLK backoff stuff through that we need for >> atomic. That would be the best long-term plan I think. > > So it implies the conversions of the whole legacy stuff? > That'd be great but take a long way :) > >> But aside from that, can't we just teach these drivers to properly do >> dpms? With the atomic framework dpms is implement as simply turning >> the screen off, any driver should be able to support that properly. > > It seems that QEMU doesn't support it yet? We'd need to implement it > at first there. I meant to say that adding an error code to the dpms callback seems like a good idea, because we need that anyway. You can ignore the blabla about why exactly atomic drivers need it, and ofc I'm not going to suggest that you convert all your drivers over to atomic first. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
