Hi Daniel, > > A patch series was floated in the drm mailing list which aimed to > > change the drm_connector and drm_encoder fields to pointer in the > > drm_connector_writeback structure, this received a huge pushback from > > the community but since i915 expects each connector present in the > > drm_device list to be a intel_connector but drm_writeback framework. > > [1] > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/patch/20220202081702.22 > > 119-1-suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx/ [2] > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/patch/20220202085429.22 > > 261-6-suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx/ This forces us to use a drm_connector > > which is not embedded in intel_connector the current drm_writeback > > framework becomes very unfeasible to us as it would mean a lot of > > checks at a lot of places to take into account the above issue.Since > > no one had an issue with encoder field being changed into a pointer it > > was decided to break the connector and encoder pointer changes into > > two different series.The encoder field changes is currently being > > worked upon by Abhinav Kumar > > [3]https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/list/?series=633565 > > In the meantime for i915 to start using the writeback functionality we > > came up with a interim solution to own writeback pipeline bypassing > > one provided by drm which is what these patches do. > > Note: these are temp patches till we figure out how we can either > > change drm core writeback to work with our intel_connector structure > > or find a different solution which allows us to work with the current > > I'm assuming this is just fyi to keep development moving and not being > planned for merging? Yes we do plan to get it merged as a proper implementation that uses drm-core will require significant time and to unblock the writeback functionality these interim series of patches have been floated. Regards Suraj Kandpal
