On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I guess the main thing I care about is that we don't advertise things > to userspace that we can't actually do. I'm not sure what other hw > out there supports rotation in hw in some form or another, but it > might be a good time to hear from 'em about whether these property > values work for them or not. Hm, I've thought the plan was to let userspace figure that out with a dry-run flag, and if a certain configuration doesn't work it needs to fall back to rendering-based compositioning for the given surface. I don't think there's really much more we can do for fully generic compositors. Tha might leave strange hw in the dust where planes aren't symmetric in capabilities and hence a simple linear walk over surfaces/planes, ordered by bw-savings or so, yields extermely bad surface->plane assignements. But my impression is that hw is moving to unified stacks of planes so I hope we can punt on solving this in a generic way (and resort to quick platform hacks in userspace where it's really needed to hit e.g. video playback power targets). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
