On Thursday, June 10th, 2021 at 23:00, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > If there's a strong consensus that we really need this then I'm not > going to nack this, but this really needs a pile of acks from > compositor folks that they're willing to live with the resulting > fallout this will likely bring. Your cc list seems to have an absence > of compositor folks, but instead every driver maintainer. That's > backwards. We make uapi for userspace, not for kernel driver > maintainers! In wlroots we have a policy of only allowing standard KMS properties to be used. Any vendor-specific property is going to be less well-defined, less widely useful, potentially have more design issues, potentially overlap in functionality with other vendor-specific properties, likely have some hardware-specific assumptions, etc. What matters here is discussing with other driver & user-space folks to make sure the new property's design is sound. Designing uAPI is hard. If kernel folks are struggling with a user-space implementation, they should discuss with user-space folks to see which project would be interested. There's a chance a compositor will be interested in the new property and will just do the user-space part for you, if not we can suggest candidate projects. tl;dr strong agree with Daniel here.
