On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:29:20 +0200
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:

>   Hi,
> 
> > > Why attach the hotspot to the plane?  Wouldn't it make more sense to
> > > make it a framebuffer property?  
> > 
> > We don't have properties on the framebuffer. I guess you /could/ just add
> > it internally to struct drm_framebuffer, and not bother exposing to
> > userspace. I guess that would be a lot simpler,  
> 
> Yes.  I can simply stick the hotspot into drm_framebuffer in
> drm_mode_cursor_universal() and pick up the values in the driver's plane
> update function.
> 
> >  but it also means that
> > atomic userspace can't use hotspots before we add properties to fbs. And
> > doing that is a bit tricky since drm_framebuffer objects are meant to be
> > invariant - this assumption is deeply in-grained into the code all over
> > the place, everything just compares pointers when semantically it means to
> > compare the entire fb (including backing storage pointer/offsets and
> > everything).  
> 
> Hmm, the hotspot location for a given cursor image is invariant too, so
> I don't think that would be a big issue.
> 
> I'd expect userspace define a bunch of cursors, then switch between them
> (instead of defining a single cursor, then constantly updating it).

Except updating a single cursor (well, two alternating buffers) is
exactly what Weston does, since there is no "set of cursors". On
Wayland, a cursor is just a regular surface like any other with
arbitrary content from a client, except it happens to be associated
with a pointer device.

Furthermore, in Weston a cursor plane is not special in any way. *Any*
client surface can go on the cursor plane if it fits. Universal planes,
and all that.

That's one existing userspace. I suppose that is sub-optimal for
virtual drivers, isn't it? But what else could Weston do without having
separate paths for "normal DRM" vs. "virtual DRM"?


Thanks,
pq