On Thursday 06 June 2013 09:21:35 Alex Deucher wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher 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. So what's the agreement ? :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
