On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 10:07:16AM +0200, Xaver Hugl wrote: > > Couldn't we make a sysfs write trigger an atomic commit then? That way, > > it would always go through the atomic commit path, no matter whether > > you're on a "legacy" compositor or not. > > That could cause stutter. Is it really that bad? I mean, it would be only in scenarios where the legacy API is being used and I would expect it to become the standard pretty fast anyway, no? > > It probably would, but it would create a precedent I'm not really > > familiar with. Hotplug events are kind of separate because it really is > > a hardware event most of the time: you get an interrupt, and report it > > to userspace. And it's largely outside of the properties space (except > > maybe for things like edid). > > If there's any property changes, userspace does need to be notified > about it. Whether the change is caused by hardware or software doesn't > matter. Yeah, it turns out we already have a precedent for this for HDCP so it's not too bad I guess. > > If we start having the argument that a property changing must trigger a > > uevent, then it means that we can expect *any* property to do so > For anything modified outside of the compositor's control, yes. > > The client cap avoids needing uevents for the luminance property > though, since backlight control is exclusive to DRM if the compositor > supports it. > > > "the compositor needs to be in control of it" can apply to many, like > > color formats, positions, tiling, etc. > > If there were other APIs that desktops relied on for controlling color > formats and similar, we would indeed also need a client cap for those > things, until definitely all software is ported away from the old API. I really think this series should be split. We obviously need to address this, but it's kind of decoupled from the UAPI itself, and is only relevant for a small subset of its usage. And yet it's all we talk about. It'll be easier to merge in chunks and decoupling the legacy API handling from the new uapi. Maxime