On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I just realized that we've switched the dpms callback from void to int return type a while ago. So only thing you'd need to do is wire up the return code through the fbdev helpers, and fix up the virtual drivers to not allow dpms. -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
