On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone >> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone itself would >> only lead to confusion and possible bugs (make sure some code path >> doesn't try and reprogram the encoder again, etc.). > > For me the possible_clones mask is just the set of encoders which can > together share a crtc (presuming that crtc is indeed in all of the > possible_crtcs mask of each encoder). From that pov it makes imo sense > that a given encoder itself can always be with itself on the same crtc > ;-) > > Otoh setcrtc doesn't care one bit about encoders (the crtc helpers do > internally use them, but it's not interface). And the possible_clones > stuff is by far not enough to describe all hw restrictions. So tbh I > don't care which way we go (or whether we indeed keep on using this > much at all). Same. I can go either way. Alex > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
