|
On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM,
Daniel Vetter wrote:
I understand the approach.On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other stuff?enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with kobj-uevent for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 configuration. And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2.I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think this is too contentious.I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. -Daniel But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM with a design which can easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS property a bit with ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. --Ram |
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
