[PATCH 2/2] modesetting: Detect whether damage tracking is needed

[Keith Packard]

Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> writes:


>> +    if (err != -EINVAL && err != -ENOSYS) {
>
> I'm not terribly familiar with the ioctls here, but why are we ignoring
> EINVAL?  The previous patch made it sound like ENOSYS was the "I don't
> support this" error and EINVAL was a genuine error.

We're treating EINVAL and ENOSYS the same; an indication that the driver
doesn't actually care about this information.

I looked at the kernel source, and it returns -ENOSYS if there isn't a
driver hook for receiving the dirty rects; perhaps there's some notion
that -EINVAL would be another possible return value? Mostly, I didn't
want to break a potentially working case, just to make it treat -ENOSYS
exactly as it treated -EINVAL.

> Apart from this my limited X knowledge says it looks perfectly
> reasonable.

You stand at the beginning on the path to X knowledge. In time, perhaps
you will gain wisdom enough to review Peter's patches in the input
subsystem. I also hope to become that wise someday.

> Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand at intel.com>

Thanks!

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20141219/e0d06e34/attachment.sig>