Hey, On 9 February 2017 at 12:49, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Op 02-02-17 om 17:26 schreef Daniel Stone: >> On 2 February 2017 at 07:41, Maarten Lankhorst >> <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Flip the switch!! >> Not until we have the multi-CRTC event support please. :\ I don't want >> to have divergent event paths for atomic-but-useless-events. >> >> I've been frantically typing up support for this in Weston (actual >> proper atomic modesetting, which is difficult when you have fiercely >> independent per-output repaint loops, but seems ~mostly done but for >> typing), which I'd hoped to have done a week or two ago but got >> derailed due to being sick. It's coming just as quickly as I can type >> it tho. > The patch for this has been shot down before, due to lack of userspace, > but here's a slightly earlier version. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7025111/ > > I guess it's less important now that we support out-fences, which provides > a nicer way of waiting for completion. > > But since this is a problem with atomic core, not i915, do you have any > objections specifically against this patch? Yeah, it's a pretty good point; we can merge this with a cap so userspace can probe whether or not things are usable. There are a few other drivers which already expose atomic by default regardless; it was less of a problem for them since they're far less likely to be used with multiple outputs, but that's not really a fair reason to penalise you guys ... Go for it. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
