Hi
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:32 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@gmail.com
<mailto:akihiko.odaki@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 2022/03/09 18:26, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> dpy_gfx_switch and dpy_gfx_update need to be called to finish the
>> initialization or switching of the non-OpenGL display. However,
the proposed
>> patch only calls dpy_gfx_switch.
>>
>> vnc actually does not need dpy_gfx_update because the vnc
implementation of
>> dpy_gfx_switch implicitly does the work for dpy_gfx_update, but
the model of
>> ui/console expects the two of dpy_gfx_switch and dpy_gfx_update
is separated
>> and only calling dpy_gfx_switch violates the model.
dpy_gfx_update used to
>> be called even in such a case before and it is a regression.
>
> Well, no, the ->dpy_gfx_switch() callback is supposed to do
everything
> needed to bring the new surface to the screen. vnc isn't alone here,
> gtk for example does the same (see gd_switch()).
>
If dpy_gfx_switch() implies a full dpy_gfx_update(), then we would need
another callback to just set the new surface. This would avoid
intermediary and useless switches to 2d/surface when the scanout is GL.
For consistency, we should also declare that gl_scanout_texture and
gl_scanout_dmabuf imply full update as well.
> Yes, typically this is roughly the same an explicit
dpy_gfx_update call
> would do. So this could be changed if it helps making the opengl
code
> paths less confusing, but that should be a separate patch series and
> separate discussion.
>
> take care,
> Gerd
>
Then ui/cocoa is probably wrong. I don't think it does the update when
dpy_gfx_switch is called.
Please tell me if you think dpy_gfx_switch shouldn't do the implicit
update in the future. I'll write a patch to do the update in cocoa's
dpy_gfx_switch implementation otherwise.
Can we ack this series first and iterate on top? It solves a number of
issues already and is a better starting point.
thanks
--
Marc-André Lureau