On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 06:25:29PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > On Saturday, October 29th, 2022 at 13:23, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 29/10/2022 01:59, Jessica Zhang wrote: > > > > > Add support for COLOR_FILL and COLOR_FILL_FORMAT properties for > > > drm_plane. In addition, add support for setting and getting the values > > > of these properties. > > > > > > COLOR_FILL represents the color fill of a plane while COLOR_FILL_FORMAT > > > represents the format of the color fill. Userspace can set enable solid > > > fill on a plane by assigning COLOR_FILL to a uint64_t value, assigning > > > the COLOR_FILL_FORMAT property to a uint32_t value, and setting the > > > framebuffer to NULL. > > > > I suppose that COLOR_FILL should override framebuffer rather than > > requiring that FB is set to NULL. In other words, if color_filL_format > > is non-zero, it would make sense to ignore the FB. Then one can use the > > color_fill_format property to quickly switch between filled plane and > > FB-backed one. > > That would be inconsistent with the rest of the KMS uAPI. For instance, > the kernel will error out if CRTC has active=0 but a connector is still > linked to the CRTC. IOW, the current uAPI errors out if the KMS state > is inconsistent. So if the use-case here really is to solid-fill a plane (and not just provide a background color for the crtc overall), then I guess we could also extend addfb to make that happen. We've talked in the past about propertery-fying framebuffer objects, and that would sort out this uapi wart. And I agree the color fill vs PLANE_ID issue is a bit ugly at least. But if the use-cases are all background color then just doing the crtc background color would be tons simpler (and likely also easier to support for more hardware). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
