On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:57:51AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 22 January 2016 at 21:20, Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Probably should have noticed/commented on this on your previous > > iteration, but should we also restrict these new properties to be > > atomic-only? I thought there was a consensus a while back that new > > functionality would only be exposed for atomic-ready userspace. That > > would mean also adding DRM_MODE_PROP_ATOMIC to your flags at creation. > > Sorry for not noticing this when I commented before! > > I don't really see a reason to mandate atomic for these. They'll still > work with normal prop sets, every bit as well/badly as pre-atomic has > always worked. > Yeah, I agree that these could still work for legacy. But I thought the goal was to make new common properties atomic-only to help push atomic as the API of the future and also to reduce the possibility of new kernel properties confusing any poorly-written existing userspace. I thought danvet had written something about that a while back, but I could be completely misremembering. If the consensus is that exposing these for non-atomic is okay, then I don't have any serious objections to that. Thanks. Matt > Cheers, > Daniel -- Matt Roper Graphics Software Engineer IoTG Platform Enabling & Development Intel Corporation (916) 356-2795 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
