On Wednesday, February 28th, 2024 at 17:14, Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't know what the rules were 8 years ago, but the current uAPI rules > > are what they are, and a new enum entry is new uAPI. > > TBF, and even if the wayland compositors support is missing, this > property is perfectly usable as it is with upstream, open-source code, > through either the command-line or X.org, and it's documented. > > So it's fine by me from a UAPI requirement side. That is not a valid way to pass the uAPI requirements IMHO. Yes, one can program any KMS property via modetest or xrandr. Does that mean that none of the new uAPI need a "real" implementation anymore? Does that mean that the massive patch adding a color pipeline uAPI doesn't need user-space anymore? The only thing I'm saying is that this breaks the usual DRM requirements. If, as a maintainer, you're fine with breaking the rules and have a good motivation to do so, that's fine by me. Rules are meant to be broken from time to time depending on the situation. But please don't pretend that modetest/xrandr is valid user-space to pass the rules.
