On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:57:45PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:49:52 +0800 > Jonas Ådahl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Jonas Ådahl <[email protected]> > > --- > > Makefile.am | 21 ++- > > clients/presentation-shm.c | 65 +++++----- > > clients/weston-info.c | 19 +-- > > protocol/presentation_timing.xml | 274 > > --------------------------------------- > > src/compositor-drm.c | 14 +- > > src/compositor-fbdev.c | 2 +- > > src/compositor-headless.c | 2 +- > > src/compositor-rpi.c | 6 +- > > src/compositor-wayland.c | 2 +- > > src/compositor-x11.c | 2 +- > > src/compositor.c | 29 +++-- > > tests/presentation-test.c | 34 ++--- > > 12 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 369 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 protocol/presentation_timing.xml > > > diff --git a/clients/presentation-shm.c b/clients/presentation-shm.c > > index 120c40c..9083d8e 100644 > > --- a/clients/presentation-shm.c > > +++ b/clients/presentation-shm.c > > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ > > #include <wayland-client.h> > > #include "shared/helpers.h" > > #include "shared/os-compatibility.h" > > -#include "presentation_timing-client-protocol.h" > > +#include "presentation-timing-unstable-v1-client-protocol.h" > > > > enum run_mode { > > RUN_MODE_FEEDBACK, > > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct display { > > struct wl_shm *shm; > > uint32_t formats; > > > > - struct presentation *presentation; > > + struct zwl_presentation1 *presentation; > > Hi Jonas, > > I see you added the prefix wl_ here. I think this is good, it is aiming > to be a standard, generic extension usable everywhere where Wayland is. > > What I am not so sure about is whether keeping it unstable is still necessary. > https://phabricator.freedesktop.org/T43 > > Maybe we should just promote it stable while we are moving it, and > avoid one round of renames. I don't know of anything that would need > fixing or reconsidering in it, apart maybe from names (presentation?). > > Hmm, maybe if someone makes the case that one really *really* does > not need 64 bits for seconds value, it could use a break. However, > 64-bit nanoseconds value does not necessarily fit in a 32-bit seconds + > 32-bit nsecs value when nsec is limited to [0, 999999999], so I think > it's good as is. (And the code is already written and been out there > for a long time.) > > What if we skipped this one with the unstable move?
If that what you think makes sense, and noone objects to it, I see no reason not to. I haven't followed the details regarding the protocol itself, so I have no opinion whether it is suitable or not. Jonas > > > Thanks, > pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
