On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:36:12AM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: ... > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > > @@ -1554,6 +1554,41 @@ static int > > drm_mode_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) > > return -ENOMEM; > > dev->mode_config.prop_mode_id = prop; > > > > + prop = drm_property_create(dev, > > + DRM_MODE_PROP_BLOB, > > + "DEGAMMA_LUT", 0); > > Just wondering - don't we want this and the remaining properties to > be atomic only ? I doubt we have userspace that [will be updated to] > handle these, yet lacks atomic.
I asked this on a previous version of the series as well since I thought I remembered Daniel Vetter indicating that the goal was to have new capabilities going forward should require atomic (even if the properties could still technically work okay via the legacy property interface). Daniel Stone felt it was probably fine to still allow it via legacy though: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2016-January/086120.html I personally don't have a strong feeling either way, but we should probably just make sure everyone is on the same page. If we decide as a community that we *do* want the atomic requirement going forward, maybe we can add a note about that to the kerneldoc or something so we remember in the future. Matt -- Matt Roper Graphics Software Engineer IoTG Platform Enabling & Development Intel Corporation (916) 356-2795 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
