Hey, On 27 January 2016 at 14:23, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 January 2016 at 13:31, Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 27 January 2016 at 13:28, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 27 January 2016 at 11:42, Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 27 January 2016 at 09:38, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:04:18PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >>>>>> I've been procrastinating^Wwaiting on some upstream changes to land >>>>>> and with those in place I'll update the Makefile to import things >>>>>> properly. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, we should have some scripts in libdrm that runs make >>>>> headers_install, copies over the latest generated uapi headers for drm and >>>>> then creates a commit with the sha1 it was generated from. Maybe even a >>>>> rule that the sha1 has to be from Dave's drm-next. >>>> >>>> Yeah, it's certainly doable, once some kernel-internal details are >>>> shuffled out of uapi/drm/drm_mode.h. >>> What do you have in mind - DRM_MODE_PICTURE_ASPECT_* ? I'm thinking >>> more that we should bring back DRM_MODE_OBJECT_* as it breaks libdrm >>> and maybe other userspace. >>> >>> Feel free to let me know here or in the patch I just sent (didn't >>> realise and I Cc'd your collabora email). >> >> More the *_FLAGS enums: >> 12:26 PM <danvet> daniels, what kind of kernel internals in >> include/uapi/drm/drm_mode.h? >> 12:26 PM <daniels> danvet: DRM_MODE_FB_DIRTY_FLAGS, >> DRM_MODE_CURSOR_FLAGS, DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_FLAGS, DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_FLAGS >> 12:27 PM <daniels> danvet: not strictly kernel-internal per se, but >> does encourage userspace to do stupid validation on a potentially >> outdated (or too-new; either way the result is incorrect) set of flags >> 12:27 PM <danvet> hm well, don't mind those too much really >> 12:27 PM <danvet> better than keeping them separate at least >> 12:28 PM <daniels> why not just move them into the kernel and leave >> userspace to work it out for itself? >> 12:29 PM <daniels> i can't see the space for userspace using them at >> all; if you're needing to test for specific flags, then do that, but >> the only case for exposing the _FLAGS mask is to validate that you're >> not passing 'unsupported' flags (not 'flags i don't know about', since >> just use individual flags yourself for that, but 'flags the kernel >> doesn't know about'), which is a) pointless, and b) likely to be >> incorrect >> > Silly me should have checked the logs first. > > While I agree with your points I'm slightly worried that some of these > are already part of the API. So as long as a volunteer goes through > the history and checks that we don't break existing apps (libdrm, > mesa, ddxen, xserver, wayland and other compositors, dvdhrm's kmscon > and others?) I would love to see them do ;-) Well, not in libdrm Mesa, the X server or Intel driver, Weston, Mutter, or Chromium ... haven't checked kmscon, Enlightenment or other DDXes, but I'd be shocked if they did use it; if you're generating the pageflip flags in the first place yourself, why would you then need to filter them against a bitmask .,.. ? Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
