Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: fNMUvguwHjGPosPtqN7qT1OTZHVMJ7z+1V6Kse1SXGOrnLZT89CJTWWgz1T2mHNM7Rwu/bpwVO
 wcOL3B698itA==
IronPort-SDR: nBh+HDJOG1IQJScmUMIMFGy/LFqCdBemrRKIn7RuiyV93w4yPA5GwtKIR6yoVpjAtr89ryOHZW
 3VEk34ZEzXzw==
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To:     Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>, Yussuf Khalil <dev@pp3345.net>
Cc:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel\@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: Replace "Broadcast RGB" with "RGB quantization range" property
In-Reply-To: <87ftd6mi3e.fsf@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <20200413214024.46500-1-dev@pp3345.net> <20200413214024.46500-6-dev@pp3345.net> <daCvJk4O6rHOwEometGSPENJupb6adPr583_dLEetvftUQPbK4198VDijHGzM9uTm9bP3TEyGCZvxKe5PSvqWBg5xhXkL_7EiAQlmEPKWQI=@emersion.fr> <87ftd6mi3e.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:21:06 +0300
Message-ID: <87d08amhy5.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr> wrote:
>> On Monday, April 13, 2020 11:40 PM, Yussuf Khalil <dev@pp3345.net> wrote:
>>
>>> DRM now has a globally available "RGB quantization range" connector
>>> property. i915's "Broadcast RGB" that fulfils the same purpose is now
>>> considered deprecated, so drop it in favor of the DRM property.
>>
>> For a UAPI point-of-view, I'm not sure this is fine. Some user-space
>> might depend on this property, dropping it would break such user-space.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Can we make this property deprecated but still keep it for backwards
>> compatibility?
>
> Would be nice to make the i915 specific property an "alias" for the new
> property, however I'm not sure how you'd make that happen. Otherwise
> juggling between the two properties is going to be a nightmare.

Ah, the obvious easy choice is to use the property and enum names
already being used by i915 and gma500, and you have no problem. Perhaps
they're not the names you'd like, but then looking at the total lack of
consistency across property naming makes them fit right in. ;)

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center