On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:33:34 +0000 Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote:
> Hi Marius, > > On 25 January 2018 at 11:10, Marius-cristian Vlad > <marius-cristian.v...@nxp.com> wrote: > > >> + wl_signal_emit(&compositor->wake_signal, > > >> compositor); > > >> + > > >> wl_event_source_timer_update(compositor->idle_source, > > >> + > > >> + compositor->idle_time * 1000); > > > > > > I assume this is just to force a repaint. If the existing > > > compositor API doesn't quite work for this, we should create API > > > which does, or make sure enabling the output does the right > > > thing. Are you using desktop-shell, or ... ? > > > > [mvlad] Indeed. What I've observed is that it could be some time > > until the repaint fires and in that time the fb of the client can > > still be present on that output. Forcing a repaint seems to fix > > that. There's also a longer explanation: If the client destroyes > > the fb this would cause the connector to be disabled. If weston can > > reclaim the connector after it has been disabled there's no issue. > > I will need to check this once more, it might not be needed after > > all. > > Right. If we create/enable a new Weston output, this should result in > repaint happening by itself: just like it does with hotplug now. Still, should we have the client wait for the compositor to have actually posted a repaint of the output before the client destroys its fb? Do I understand right that the client destroying the fb would cause the CRTC and connector to be turned off immediately? Do we want to avoid that flicker if Weston is to take that output back into use? That brings to my mind the opposite question: if weston stops using an output so that it can lease it out, how's the flicker avoidance in that case? What about leaking fb contents between the lessor and lessee? I'm kind of guessing that avoiding flicker is out of scope and it may well happen, and that preventing fb content leaking is more important. Is that right? Does this result in toggling the CRTC off and on again on every hand-over? Given Weston's opportunistical usage of KMS resources, would it not create a risk of the lessee not being able to turn the CRTC back on if Weston manages to take more KMS resources (e.g. memory bandwidth via use of overlay planes) into use first? Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel