[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1902655248.48590444.1544100790071.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:53:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@...hat.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU"
<spice-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH] drm/qxl: use qxl_num_crtc directly
>
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:59:25AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > >
> > > Just use qxl_num_crtc directly everywhere instead of using
> > > qdev->monitors_config->max_allowed. Drops pointless indirection
> > > and also is less confusing.
> > >
> >
> > To me is MORE confusing, why comparing number of something with
> > another number? Previously code was comparing number of monitors
> > with number of monitors, not number of CRTs with number of
> > monitors.
>
> Yes, spice/qxl and drm/kms use slightly different terminology.
>
> drm crtc == qxl monitor.
> drm framebuffer == qxl surface.
>
> You need to know that anyway when looking at the qxl ksm code. We
> have function names like qxl_crtc_update_monitors_config(). I fail
> to see why that is a problem ...
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
>
>
I don't see any problem too but you are explaining to me
why your rationale "and also is less confusing" does not
stand.
Frediano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists