Re: [RFC] Plane color pipeline KMS uAPI

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 04:06:26PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Friday, May 5th, 2023 at 17:28, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Ok no comments from me on the actual color operations and semantics of all
> > that, because I have simply nothing to bring to that except confusion :-)
> > 
> > Some higher level thoughts instead:
> > 
> > - I really like that we just go with graph nodes here. I think that was
> >   bound to happen sooner or later with kms (we almost got there with
> >   writeback, and with hindsight maybe should have).
> 
> I'd really rather not do graphs here. We only need linked lists as Sebastian
> said. Graphs would significantly add more complexity to this proposal, and
> I don't think that's a good idea unless there is a strong use-case.

You have a graph, because a graph is just nodes + links. I did _not_
propose a full generic graph structure, the link pointer would be in the
class/type specific structure only. Like how we have the plane->crtc or
connector->crtc links already like that (which already _is_ is full blown
graph).

Maybe explain what exactly you're thinking under "do graphs here" so I
understand what you mean differently than me?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch