On 4 August 2016 at 14:15, Sharma, Shashank <shashank.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/4/2016 5:04 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> On 4 August 2016 at 11:16, Sharma, Shashank <shashank.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Emil, >>> >>> Thanks for your time. >>> >>> I have got mixed opinion on this. >>> >>> IMHO we should expose them to userspace too, as UI agents like Hardware >>> composer/X/Wayland must know what does these >>> >>> flags means, so that they can display them on the end user screen (like >>> settings menu) >>> >>> But few people even think thats its too complex to be exposed to >>> userspace >>> agents. >>> >> If we want these/such flags passed between kernel and user space one must: >> - Provide a kernel interface how to do that >> - Provide a userspace (acked by respective developers/maintainers) >> that the approach is sane and proves useful. >> >> Since the above can take some time, I'd suggest dropping those from >> the UAPI header(s)... for now. >> >> -Emil > > Please guide me a bit more on this problem, Emil, Daniel. > The reason why I want to pass this to userspace is, so that, HWC/X/any other > UI manager, can send a modeset > which is accurate upto aspect ratio. > Nobody(?) is arguing that you don't to pass such information to/from userspace :-) Your series does the internal parsing/management of the attribute and has no actual UAPI implementation and/or userspace references (to code/discussions). Thus the UAPI changes should _not_ be part of these patches. Daniel's blog [1] has many educational materials why and how things are done upstream. I would kindly invite you to give them (another?) courtesy read. Regards, Emil [1] http://blog.ffwll.ch/ _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
