[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGs3EHxzwW4MaYc+LXmKL3amD8pUysamrprPy-F-W8=6AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:25:11 -0500
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>,
Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
Mihail Atanassov <mihail.atanassov@....com>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] drm: Add writeback connector type
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Have we considered hiding writeback behind a client cap instead?
It is kinda *almost* unneeded, since the connector reports itself as
disconnected.
I'm not sure what the reason was to drop the cap, but I think it would
be better to have a cap so WB connectors don't show up in, for ex,
xrandr
BR,
-R
Powered by blists - more mailing lists