On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:51:25PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > Reviving this thread because I'm not sure what the outcome was. > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:52:12AM GMT, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I think it bends it pretty badly, because people running native Xorg are > > slowly going away, and the modetest hack does not clear the bar for "is it > > a joke/test/demo hack" for me. > > > > I think some weston (or whatever compositor you like) config file support > > to set a bunch of "really only way to configure is by hand" output > > properties would clear the bar here for me. Because that is a feature I > > already mentioned that xrandr _does_ have, and which modetest hackery very > > much does not. > > The expectation (and general usage) for that property was that it was > set by the kernel command line and then was forgotten about. Old TVs > require one mode and that's it, so it doesn't make much sense to change > it while the system is live, you just want the default to work. > > So it's not really a matter of "the user-space code should be open" > here, there's no user-space code, and there will likely never be given > that it's mostly used to deal with decades-old systems at this point. Yeah if this is being used just with the kernel cmdline, then I guess that's somewhat ok-ish. And TVs are horrible, so "massage your kernel cmdline" is comparitively not a horrible interface :-P Anyway, I guess this makes this an ack. -Sima -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
