On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 08:37:31AM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > On Monday, September 7, 2020 10:31 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 02:59:49PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:29 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:49 PM Simon Ser contact@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:44 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose something similar happens in user-space: gbm_bo_create > > > > > > > without modifiers needs to properly set the implicit modifier, ie. > > > > > > > gbm_bo_get_modifier needs to return the effective modifier. Is this > > > > > > > something already documented? > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that happens, but it has come up in discussions. It's > > > > > > kinda different scenario though: getfb2 is for cross-compositor stuff, > > > > > > enabling smooth transitions at boot-up and when switching. So you have > > > > > > a legit reason for mixing modifier-aware userspace with > > > > > > non-modifier-aware userspace. And the modifier-aware userspace would > > > > > > like that everything works with modifiers consistently, including > > > > > > getfb2. But gbm is just within a single process, and that should > > > > > > either run all with modifiers, or not at all, since these worlds just > > > > > > dont mix well. Hence I'm not seeing much use for that, -modesetting > > > > > > being a confused mess nonwithstanding :-) > > > > > > > > > > Well… There's also the case where some legacy Wayland client talks to a > > > > > modifier-aware compositor. gbm_bo_import would be called without a > > > > > modifier, but the compositor expects gbm_bo_get_modifier to work. > > > > > Also, wlroots will call gbm_bo_create without a modifier to only let > > > > > the driver pick "safe" modifiers in case passing the full list of > > > > > modifiers results in a black screen. Later on wlroots will call > > > > > gbm_bo_get_modifier to figure out what modifier the driver picked. > > > > > > > > gbm_bo_import is a different thing from gbm_bo_create. Former I agree > > > > should figure out the right modifiers (and I think it does that, at > > > > least on intel mesa). For gbm_bo_create I'm not sure we should/need to > > > > require that. > > > > > > I guess the compositor will just forward the value returned by > > > gbm_bo_get_modifier in any case, so returning INVALID would be fine > > > too (to mean "implicit modifier"). > > > In both the create and import cases, other metadata like pitches and > > > offsets should be correctly set I think? > > > > Well if you have a modifier format underneath, the non-modifiered offsets > > and pitches might be pure fiction. Also, they might not be sufficient, if > > the modifier adds more planes. > > In this case (gbm_bo_create without modifiers), we're discussing > whether we require gbm_bo_get_modifier to return a valid modifier, or > if INVALID is fine. Hm then I missed the use-case for a gbm_bo_create without modifiers, where afterwards userspace wants the modifiers. That sounds like a bug (and yes -modesetting is buggy that way). -Daniel > > So I'm not sure how we can let the "implicit modifier" go through once a > > stack is converted to support modifiers. In a way modifiers are one-way > > compatible only: implicit modifiers -> explicit modifiers should be > > well-defined, the other way just looses information and doesn't work. > > That makes sense to me, and still works fine with the two use-cases > outlined above. -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
