On 21 December 2016 at 09:14, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest that compositors use the CMS you have spent so much time and > effort perfecting, and you start with the assumption that they will not > or cannot do so. Why?
I think lcms2 is fine to use; it's widely used in other projects, tested, and already optionally used in weston. > Are you implying that the CMS you worked on so hard is impossible to use > from a compositor? I think that's basically correct, argyllcms doesn't have any header files or shared libraries. When using it to generate color profiles for things like printers from gnome-color-manager I have to spawn the binaries themselves (and only in a VT...) and then scrape the output. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-color-manager/tree/src/gcm-calibrate-argyll.c#n273 > Yes! The CMS needs to provide the API that all compositors could use. I'm not a great fan of pluggable CMSs, it's a bit like designing a car that has a requirement that the engine is swappable with another whilst driving down the motorway. I'm a great fan at pointing people to http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ when they ask about things like this. > so "just set the CLUT" is already an outdated approach This is another point: We're all talking about the least-common-denominator approach of setting the RGB 8-bit ramps on the logic it's the only way to set the white point without the overhead of a shader lookup. Most modern hardware actually supports some kind of *matrix* and LUT on the crtc output itself, although there is no common abstract interface that's provided by libdrm, yet. Richard. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
