Wayland content-protection extension
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Mon Jul 2 14:00:47 UTC 2018
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 16:25:28 +0300
Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:41:33 +0530
> Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c at intel.com> wrote:
> The idea here was that set_srm_table() is a simple API we can easily
> maintain upstream. The external plugin would check the SRM table dates
> and signatures and if they pass, call set_srm_table(). The external
> plugin would also offer the client interface, whether it is Wayland,
> DBus, or something else, to the video players. I believe this is a
> design we could the very least agree to in upstream Weston, provided
> there is a way to test set_srm_table() by feeding a sample SRM table
> e.g. through a small test plugin in upstream.
> Oh, and if saving the latest SRM table to persistent memory is needed,
> the external plugin could do that as well.
I forgot to note, the Wayland protocol implementation would be in
Weston upstream. There should be no reason to push that out to an
external plugin. So Weston upstream would not only offer
set_srm_table() but also take care of tracking the protection status,
enabling HDCP on Wayland client request and reporting the status to the
It is only the SRM table management that I am concerned about. And the
topology thing, but I know nothing about that yet.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the wayland-devel