Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Avoid calling the cursor_set2 callback from the drm_mode_cursor ioctl

[Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>]

On 11/29/2015 10:18 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:24:11PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 11/27/2015 01:02 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:42:15PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/2015 11:11 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:52:14AM -0800, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>>>> If the drm_mode_cursor_ioctl is called and the cursor_set2 callback is
>>>>>> implemented, the cursor hotspot is set to (0,0) which is incompatible
>>>>>> with vmwgfx where the hotspot should instead remain unchanged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if the driver implements both cursor_set2 and cursor_set, prefer calling
>>>>>> the latter from the drm_mode_cursor ioctl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
>>>>> That looks like papering over a bug in the client - it simply shouldn't
>>>>> mix these two if it expects the hotspot to stick around. There was also
>>>>> recently a big discussion about hotspot behaviour, and the conclusion was
>>>>> that qxl got it all wrong. Since that was specifically added for qxl I'm
>>>>> not sure how well this was ever tested ...
>>>> No, this is not the case, This is for old Xorg userspace that first sets
>>>> the hotspot using our ancient
>>>> driver-private ioctl and then calls drm_mode_cursor() to update the cursor.
>>>>
>>>> Now if we were to implement cursor_set2, which is apparently needed to
>>>> get gnome-shell/Wayland cursors in the right place, without this fix, it
>>>> would break old Xorg, so we don't have much choice in this case from
>>>> what I can tell.
>>>>
>>>> The root problem here is that the drm_mode_cursor() behaviour in the
>>>> presence of cursor_set2 didn't take the existing vmware hotspot
>>>> semantics into account.
> Ugh. I think the simplest solution is to not mix up the two hotspots, i.e.
> separately keep track of both the legacy vmwgfx hotspot and the drm core
> hotspot. Then in the actual cursor set code add them. A bit of ugly in the
> vmwgfx code (but not much), instead of leaking that driver private legacy
> ioctl semantics into drm core. Would that work?
>
>
Hmm.

Yes it would probably work. Good idea.
I guess we just need to make sure that both hotspots are reset to (0,0)
at master drop.

/Thomas

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel