Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Best to pull in some other compositor people and get them to agree. From a > kernel pov I'm fine with whatever userspace preferes. Hrm. It would be good to have everyone using the same interpretation of EDID data; in particular, where the kernel has quirks that change the interpretation, user space should be consistent with that. Unless we expose all of the EDID data, then user space may still have to parse EDID. If the kernel has EDID quirks, it might be good to to make those affect the "raw" EDID data visible to use space so that values the kernel supplies separately are consistent with values extracted from the "raw" EDID data. Doing this in the kernel does make it harder to quickly supply fixes for a specific user space application. This will probably lead to kludge-arounds in user space that could depend on kernel version. Perhaps these EDID capabilities in the kernel should be versioned separately? I see good benefits from having user space able to see how the kernel is interpreting EDID so that it can adapt as appropriate, but we should be cautious about moving functionality into the kernel that would be more easily maintained up in user space. -- -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
