[RFC] wl_surface video protocol extension

Daniel Stone daniel at fooishbar.org
Mon Oct 28 20:05:12 CET 2013


On 28 October 2013 15:47, Axel Davy <davy at clipper.ens.fr> wrote:
> On 28/10/2013, Frederic Plourde wrote :
>> I don't know about current/future driver support for this new GSYNC
>> technology... but you know what, I definitely agree with Pekka as we should
>> get this protocol and basic buffer queuing implementation reviewd and
>> working for the general case for now and add HW-specific extensions later.
> I agree that we must come up with a working protocol soon, but I do not
> agree the one proposed was the best one.
> I would prefer the current wl_surface interface to be extended that a new
> one created.
> Adding a new interface is not the best performance-wise, and I see no reason
> why we would seperate these features
> from wl_surface.

I don't believe that the number of interfaces presents any particular
performance problem ...

Anyway, one reason to keep them separate is so that people can
implement compositors without having to implement all this

> For programers having to cope with X and Wayland, and to better support the
> Present extension, I reiterate my suggestion
> to do something similar to the X Present extension.

Anything in particular? I'm well aware of Present, but am not entirely
sure what you're suggesting to do different.


More information about the wayland-devel mailing list