On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 13:47, Kandpal, Suraj <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Hi Abhinav, > > > > Hi Laurent > > > > > > > > Ok sure, I can take this up but I need to understand the proposal a > > > > little bit more before proceeding on this. So we will discuss this > > > > in another email where we specifically talk about the connector changes. > > > > > > > > Also, I am willing to take this up once the encoder part is done and > > > > merged so that atleast we keep moving on that as MSM WB > > > > implementation can proceed with that first. > > > > > > > > Hi Jani and Suraj > > > > > > > > Any concerns with splitting up the series into encoder and connector > > > > OR re- arranging them? > > > > > > > > Let me know if you can do this OR I can also split this up keeping > > > > Suraj's name in the Co-developed by tag. > > > I was actually thinking of floating a new patch series with both > > > encoder and connector pointer changes but with a change in > > > initialization functions wherein we allocate a connector and encoder > > > incase the driver doesn’t have its own this should minimize the effect > > > on other drivers already using current drm writeback framework and also > > allow i915 to create its own connector. > > > > I thought that Laurent was quite strict about the connector. So I'd suggest > > targeting drm_writeback_connector with an optionally created encoder and > > the builtin connector > In that case even if we target that i915 will not be able to move forward with its > implementation of writeback as builtin connector does not work for us right now > as explained earlier, optionally creating encoder and connector will help everyone > move forward and once done we can actually sit and work on how to side step this > issue using Laurent's suggestion This is up to Laurent & other DRM maintainers to decide whether this approach would be accepted or not. So far unfortunately I have mostly seen the pushback and a strong suggestion to stop treating each drm_connector as i915_connector. I haven't checked the exact details, but IMO adding a branch if the connector's type is DRM_CONNECTOR_VIRTUAL should be doable. > > > > > We can work on Laurent's suggestion but that would first require the > > > initial RFC patches and then a rework from both of our drivers side to > > > see if they gel well with our current code which will take a > > > considerable amount of time. We can for now however float the patch > > > series up which minimally affects the current drivers and also allows > > > i915 and msm to move forward with its writeback implementation off > > > course with a proper documentation stating new drivers shouldn't try to > > make their own connectors and encoders and that drm_writeback will do > > that for them. > > > Once that's done and merged we can work with Laurent on his proposal > > > to improve the drm writeback framework so that this issue can be side > > stepped entirely in future. > > > For now I would like to keep the encoder and connector pointer changes > > together. > > Best Regards, > Suraj Kandpal -- With best wishes Dmitry
