Earlier this week, there was a bit of confusion about those new capabilities, to the point I think it's better to document the intention and API contract.
The comment documents the current situation: - the radeon driver returns the only valid size for the hw - i915 returns the maximun cursor size - other drivers fall back to returning 64x64 The common contract is to return a valid cursor size. Cc: Sagar Kamble <[email protected]> Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Deucher <[email protected]> Cc: Imre Deak <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <[email protected]> --- include/uapi/drm/drm.h | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/drm.h index b06c8ed..ec6b259 100644 --- a/include/uapi/drm/drm.h +++ b/include/uapi/drm/drm.h @@ -619,6 +619,15 @@ struct drm_gem_open { #define DRM_PRIME_CAP_EXPORT 0x2 #define DRM_CAP_TIMESTAMP_MONOTONIC 0x6 #define DRM_CAP_ASYNC_PAGE_FLIP 0x7 +/* + * The CURSOR_WIDTH and CURSOR_HEIGHT capabilities return a valid widthxheight + * combination for the hardware cursor. The intention is that a hardware + * agnostic userspace can query a cursor plane size to use. + * + * Note that the cross-driver contract is to merely return a valid size; + * drivers are free to attach another meaning on top, eg. i915 returns the + * maximum plane size. + */ #define DRM_CAP_CURSOR_WIDTH 0x8 #define DRM_CAP_CURSOR_HEIGHT 0x9 -- 1.8.3.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
