[RFC v2 0/1] drm/connector: Add support for privacy-screen properties
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Tue May 12 14:20:32 UTC 2020
On Tue, 12 May 2020 10:18:31 +0200
Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/20 9:55 PM, Rajat Jain wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:47 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com <mailto:hdegoede at redhat.com>> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > This RFC takes Rajat's earlier patch for adding privacy-screen properties
> > infra to drm_connector.c and then adds the results of the discussion from
> > the "RFC: Drm-connector properties managed by another driver / privacy
> > screen support" mail thread on top, hence the v2.
> > Thank you so much for doing this. I was following the said discussion and eventually it became quite complex for me to understand and follow :-)
> I hope the new doc text makes things clear again?
> > The most important thing here is big kernel-doc comment which gets added in
> > the first patch-chunk modifying drm_connector.c, this summarizes, or at
> > least tries to summarize, the conclusions of our previous discussion on
> > the userspace API and lays down the ground rules for how the 2 new
> > "privacy-screen sw-state" and "privacy-screen hw-state" properties are
> > to be used both from the driver side as well as from the userspace side.
> > Other then that this modifies Rajat's patch to add 2 properties instead
> > of one, without much other changes.
> > Rajat, perhaps you can do a new version of your patch-set integration /
> > using this version of the properties and then if everyone is ok with
> > the proposed userspace API Jani can hopefully merge the whole set
> > through the i915 tree sometime during the 5.9 cycle.
> > SGTM. I have actually moved to working on something else now, so I will most likely wait for this patch to get merged, before rebasing my other / remaining patches on top of that.
> We have the rule that code like this will not be merged until it has at least
> one in kernel user. I plan to eventually use this too, but that is still
> a while away as I first need to write a lcdshadow subsystem which the
> thinkpad_acpi code can then use to register a lcdshadow device; and when
> that all is in place, then I can hook it up on the drm code.
I believe this falls under "new UAPI" rules, because this is adding new
KMS properties. Hence an in-kernel user is not enough:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the dri-devel