[PATCH weston v12 00/40] Atomic modesetting

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Emre.

On 1 November 2017 at 11:56, Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB)
<eucan at de.adit-jv.com> wrote:
> Is this the latest WIP branch to test " https://gitlab.collabora.com/daniels/weston/commits/wip/2017-10/atomic-v13" ?

Right you are.

> In my opinion, it would easier to review/test your patches if you can separate them in multiple patch series.
>
> For example, you can send at first up to "compositor-drm: Atomic modesetting support". Commit message states that it enables atomic API support for weston.
> Other features like GBM_BO_IMPORT_FD_MODIFIER support are nice to have but not a hard requirement of atomic modesetting support.
>
> What do you think ?

It's a reasonable idea, but in practice the two aren't completely
independent. The reason GBM_BO_IMPORT_FD_MODIFIER was tied up with
this is that it relies quite heavily on changes made to drm_fb which
have now been merged, but were previously part of the atomic series.
I've been considering pulling those out separately, but on the other
hand there are quite large conflicts doing so: before the 'helper'
commits, there are two separate GBM import paths for primary/scanout
and overlay planes, which only get unified inside the atomic series.

My current thinking is:
  * everything up to 'atomic modesetting support' is qutie
self-contained, largely reviewed, and should hopefully be very very
close to landing by the time I can send out a new revision next week
(been busy with internal stuff & travel recently)
  * once that's landed, everything up to 'Add modifiers to GBM dmabuf
import', and possibly including 'Support plane IN_FORMATS' + 'Support
modifiers with GBM' can be considered as one independent series
(though will need a non-trivial rebase) which should be quite easy to
review
  * the rest of the code dealing with plane assignments (up to 'Enable
planes for atomic') can be considered another separate series; though
there are a couple of bugfixes in there, the rest is more complex and
difficult

I think it makes the most sense to work through like that in order. Of
course if you have any other ideas or priorities, I'd be really
interested to hear - anything which makes it easier to review is
obviously good! :)

Cheers,
Daniel