On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 04:06:26PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > On Friday, May 5th, 2023 at 17:28, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ok no comments from me on the actual color operations and semantics of all > > that, because I have simply nothing to bring to that except confusion :-) > > > > Some higher level thoughts instead: > > > > - I really like that we just go with graph nodes here. I think that was > > bound to happen sooner or later with kms (we almost got there with > > writeback, and with hindsight maybe should have). > > I'd really rather not do graphs here. We only need linked lists as Sebastian > said. Graphs would significantly add more complexity to this proposal, and > I don't think that's a good idea unless there is a strong use-case. You have a graph, because a graph is just nodes + links. I did _not_ propose a full generic graph structure, the link pointer would be in the class/type specific structure only. Like how we have the plane->crtc or connector->crtc links already like that (which already _is_ is full blown graph). Maybe explain what exactly you're thinking under "do graphs here" so I understand what you mean differently than me? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
