Re: [PATCH 4/5] drm/atomic: Make the drm_atomic_state documentation less ambiguous

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 16:20:37 +0100
Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:25:22 +0100
> > Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 10:08:28AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:  
> > > > On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 15:27:33 +0100
> > > > Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:51:06AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:    
> > > > > > On Mon,  4 Dec 2023 13:17:06 +0100
> > > > > > Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >       
> > > > > > > The current documentation of drm_atomic_state says that it's the "global
> > > > > > > state object". This is confusing since, while it does contain all the
> > > > > > > objects affected by an update and their respective states, if an object
> > > > > > > isn't affected by this update it won't be part of it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thus, it's not truly a "global state", unlike object state structures
> > > > > > > that do contain the entire state of a given object.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  include/drm/drm_atomic.h | 10 +++++++++-
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

...

> > Sima's phrasing is an addition, not a replacement, to this. There are
> > two things:
> > 
> > a) An atomic commit does not need to contain all the objects of a
> >    drm_device.
> > 
> > b) An atomic commit may affect more objects than it originally
> >    contained. (from userspace perspective)
> > 
> > Here b) is important for userspace to know, because it can be
> > surprising, but I understand that this patch is not userspace doc.  
> 
> Right, so my initial goal from this series was to make sure the
> ambiguous meaning of what a state was was (hopefully) lifted, and thus
> we could progress on your userspace doc patch. So I want to address
> point A here.
> 
> B is also important, but maybe we should discuss it into a separate
> patch?

Sure!

Just mind both cases to not accidentally imply something about b) when
talking about a).


Thanks,
pq

Attachment: pgptWchcLfnpM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux