On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:21:33PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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. Yeah, if no one comes up with anything better, the trial and error approach is the plan in my mind. But in case the hardware never ever supports certain property/value I think we shouldn't expose it. Like 90/270 degree rotation in case of intel hardware. > 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). Right. If someone has really specific needs I think they can just go and write their own compositor (or plugin if the compositor in question has such things). -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
