On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:05:16 +0000 Simon Ser <contact@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, June 26, 2020 11:15 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I have no opinion really if adding yet another set of the same > > definitions is good or not. We do need the UAPI doc, but that does not > > necessarily mean we also need definition code in UAPI headers. > > > > I give this one a shrug. > > But then uapi docs don't document uapi, instead document internal > kernel enums? And also user-space not using libdrm needs to have these > hardcoded somewhere. DRM properties are already like this. You don't find property names or enum value names in UAPI headers, you only find them in UAPI docs. > The libdrm re-definitions are annoying. Maybe a better way forward > would be to have a "status" prop, which could then also be used for > the planned fine-grained uapi events. That might be nice. Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgpxfTBY6iEVw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
