KMS enums and bitfields UAPI

[Simon Ser]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:24 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:38:37PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote:
>
> > Daniel Vetter, Ville, any thoughts about this?
>
> Magic 8ball says "unclear", and I feel like I keep flip-flopping around on
> this.
>
> I think best-case outcome here is that we're a) consistent across
> compositors and b) document that consensus in the kernel's uapi section
> (for lack of better places).

Agreed.

> I'm not hung up on what exactly that consensus should be, as long as it's
> a consistent across projects. If you folks can't figure this out I'll do a
> live youtube sessions and throw a dice :-P

It seems like everyone's fine with whatever decision we make as long as
we make one. :P

I guess I'll summarize again my main point here: requiring user-space
to use the KMS API to get enum values just makes it more difficult for
user-space to use KMS. I can't think of any reason why the kernel would
want to use different enum values for a standard property.

Does anybody remember if there was such a use-case when this UAPI was
introduced?

Thanks,

Simon