Hi Bryce, On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:37:59 -0800 Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> wrote:
> To followup Pekka's recent libweston thread, here's the next actions it > looks like we should take? > > a. Revert 5ffbfffa Yes. > b. Land https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/67547/, which covers > the drm-backend. (Is this patch proposal good as is, or would it > benefit from any additional review?) Yes, though struct weston_backend_config still needs a 'size_t struct_size' added as the first member with the following semantics: - the caller must set struct_size to sizeof(struct weston_whatever_backend_config) - if a backend receives a struct_size smaller or equal to what it uses, it uses the given portion - if a backend receives a struct_size greater than what it uses, it must fail What happens with struct weston_drm_backend_output_config is still open a bit. I think we should just land something that gets us forward for now, and rethink the whole output hotplugging. I feel the current approach of "backend found a new output, it demands some parameters and will extend the desktop there" is a bit rigid. A more flexible design would be to maintain a dynamic list of possible outputs with hotplug notifications, and the compositor can then itself enable, disable and configure outputs as it wants. So rather than a backend always unconditionally enabling a connected output, it gives the decision to the compositor which can also pick the layout etc. This might even allow to better integrate nested and bare compositors: a windowed nested compositor could just create any new output, while a bare compositor checks if the output is actually connected and succeeds or fails output enabling accordingly. But I assume this will be a major work, so it must not hold up the libweston effort on other fronts. > c. Defer the two alternative options for now > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/73206/ > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/[73035,73036,73037,73038,73039] Yes, and we may want to have a comment in the code pointing to e.g. the email thread where these were discussed, in case the matter comes up again. > d. Review/update wayland-backend and x11-backend to comply > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/74553/ > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/74504/ Yes. > This establishes Giulio's "Well Defined Structs" approach for > configuring libweston backends. This uses versioned structs for > communicating parameters with the backends. > > If no one raises an objection to this plan, I can tackle (a), (b) and > (c) myself directly. For (d), offhand it appears they at least need to > add the structure versioning support, but might be suitable to consider > landing after that? Very good. Thanks, pq
pgp9iuJxhh_w6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
