Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:20:18AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > It's very confusing for userspace to have to deal with inconsistencies > here, and some drivers screwed this up a bit. Most just ommitted the > format list when they meant to say that only linear modifier is > allowed, but some also m

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:20 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > It's very confusing for userspace to have to deal with inconsistencies > here, and some drivers screwed this up a bit. Most just ommitted the > format list when they meant to say that only linear modifier is > allowed, but some also meant t

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 15:58, Simon Ser wrote: > > Continuing on that idea to push for enabling the cap in more cases: do > we have a policy to require new drivers to always support modifiers? > > That would be nice, even if it's just about enabling LINEAR. Sounds perfectly reasonable IMHO. I thin

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

Continuing on that idea to push for enabling the cap in more cases: do we have a policy to require new drivers to always support modifiers? That would be nice, even if it's just about enabling LINEAR. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedeskto

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

Hi Daniel, Thanks for the extra clarification. On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:32:19PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 10:20, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > @@ -360,6 +373,9 @@ static int __drm_universal_

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:20:18 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > It's very confusing for userspace to have to deal with inconsistencies > here, and some drivers screwed this up a bit. Most just ommitted the > format list when they meant to say that only linear modifier is > allowed, but some also meant

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:32:19PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 10:20, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > @@ -360,6 +373,9 @@ static int __drm_universal_plane_init(struct drm_device > > *dev, > > * drm_universal_plane_init() to let the DRM managed resource > > i

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

Hi Daniel, On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 10:20, Daniel Vetter wrote: > @@ -360,6 +373,9 @@ static int __drm_universal_plane_init(struct drm_device > *dev, > * drm_universal_plane_init() to let the DRM managed resource infrastructure > * take care of cleanup and deallocation. > * > + * Drivers su

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

Reviewed-by: Simon Ser ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/modifiers: Enforce consistency between the cap an IN_FORMATS

It's very confusing for userspace to have to deal with inconsistencies here, and some drivers screwed this up a bit. Most just ommitted the format list when they meant to say that only linear modifier is allowed, but some also meant that only implied modifiers are acceptable (because actually none