On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:30:18AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ville Syrjälä >> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:07:49PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:19:59 -0500 >> >> > Rob Clark <rob@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Rob Clark <rob.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > From: Rob Clark <rob@xxxxxx> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This is following a bit the approach that Ville is taking for atomic- >> >> >> > modeset, in that it is switching over to using properties for everything. >> >> >> > The advantage of this approach is that it makes it easier to add new >> >> >> > attributes to set as part of a page-flip (and even opens the option to >> >> >> > add new object types). >> >> >> >> >> >> oh, and for those wondering what the hell this is all about, >> >> >> nuclear-pageflip is a pageflip that atomically updates the CRTC layer >> >> >> and zero or more attached plane layers, optionally changing various >> >> >> properties such as z-order (or even blending modes, etc) atomically. >> >> >> It includes the option for a test step so userspace compositor can >> >> >> test a proposed configuration (if any properties not marked as >> >> >> 'dynamic' are updated). This intended to allow, for example, weston >> >> >> compositor to synchronize updates to plane (sprite) layers with CRTC >> >> >> layer. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Can we please name this something different? I complained about this in >> >> > IRC, but I don't know if you hang around in #intel-gfx. >> >> > >> >> > Some suggestions: >> >> > multiplane pageflip >> >> > muliplane atomic pageflip >> >> > atomic multiplane pageflip >> >> > atomic multiflip >> >> > pageflip of atomic and multiplane nature >> >> > >> >> > Nuclear is not at all descriptive and requires as your response shows >> >> > :-) >> >> > >> >> >> >> fair enough.. I was originally calling it atomic-pageflip until >> >> someone (I don't remember who) started calling it nuclear-pageflip to >> >> differentiate from atomic-modeset. But IMO we could just call the two >> >> ioclts atomic-modeset and atomic-pageflip. (Or even modeset2 and >> >> pageflip2, but that seems much more boring) >> > >> > My plan has been to use the same ioctl for both uses. They'll need >> > nearly identical handling anyway on the ioctl level. I have something >> > semi-working currently, but I need to clean it up a bit before I can >> > show it to anyone. >> >> I do think the atomic-pageflip ioctl really should take the crtc-id.. >> so probably should be two ioctls, but nearly identical > > But then you can't support atomic pageflips across multiple crtcs even > if the hardware would allow it. I would hate to add such limitation to > the API. I can immediately think of a use case; combining several > smaller displays to form a single larger display. > > With a unified API you could just add some kind of flag that tells the > kernel that user space really wants an atomic update, and if the > driver/hardware can't do it, it can return an error. well, that is really only a problem for X11.. and atomic flip across multiple crtc's is a potential mess from performance standpoint unless your displays are vsync'd lock. weston already renders each output individually, rather than spanning a single fb across multiple displays like x11 does. So this problem really doesn't exist for weston. BR, -R > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
