[PATCH v2 weston 00/16] Atomic modesetting support

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:05:48 -0700
Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:16:55PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote:
> > On 22/06/15 11:25 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Thanks to everyone who reviewed the previous series. This new series
> > > cleans up the previous patches, introduces a few fixes (e.g. not relying
> > > on a repaint to pull us out of DPMS), and crucially adds support for the
> > > libdrm TEST_ONLY interface (allowing us to check before we commit, e.g.
> > > that a particular plane combination is workable), using the new cursor
> > > API from libdrm.
> > 
> > Everything up to and including 8/16 seems like beneficial clean-up or
> > bug fix that could land independently of later bits?
> > 
> > For that half,
> > Reviewed-By: Derek Foreman <derekf at osg.samsung.com>
> > 
> > (The rest I haven't had a chance to look at yet)
> 
> At least for patches 1-6 I tend to agree; they're good cleanup or
> refactoring, and no reason not to just get them landed.  Patch 7 started
> to look a bit more ambitious to me so I stopped there.  But with 1-6,
> might save time having to rebase them.  Unfortunately they already don't
> apply, but if you can split them out from the remainder of the patchset,
> I'd be +1 for just landing them immediately.

Sure. I've been holding off on them with the prospect of landing Mario
Kleiner's compositor patches first, just in case there was any
conflict, but since I redid Mario's patches and I'm still waiting for
the final ack on my analysis which means I can (and probably already
need to) rebase them, I'm totally fine landing these
clean-up/preparation patches.

Of the current libweston series, there are still changes coming to
compositor-drm.c for config handling, but I don't think they should
conflict much.


Thanks,
pq