Re: [PATCH] drm/udl: Add ARGB8888 as a format

[Rob Clark]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:06 AM Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 06:49:15AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:18 AM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > sorry that I did not see the patch before.
> > >
> > > Am 27.02.24 um 23:19 schrieb Douglas Anderson:
> > > > Even though the UDL driver converts to RGB565 internally (see
> > > > pixel32_to_be16() in udl_transfer.c), it advertises XRGB8888 for
> > > > compatibility. Let's add ARGB8888 to that list.
> > >
> > > We had a heated discussion about the emulation of color formats. It was
> > > decided that XRGB8888 is the only format to support; and that's only
> > > because legacy userspace sometimes expects it. Adding other formats to
> > > the list should not be done easily.
> >
> > OTOH it is fixing a kernel change that broke userspace
> >
> > > >
> > > > This makes UDL devices work on ChromeOS again after commit
> > > > c91acda3a380 ("drm/gem: Check for valid formats"). Prior to that
> > > > commit things were "working" because we'd silently treat the ARGB8888
> > > > that ChromeOS wanted as XRGB8888.
> > >
> > > This problem has been caused by userspace. Why can it not be fixed there?
> > >
> > > And udl is just one driver. Any other driver without ARGB8888, such as
> > > simpledrm or ofdrm, would be affected. Do these work?
> >
> > Probably any driver where ARGB8888 is equivalent to XRGB8888 (ie.
> > single primary plane, etc) should advertise both.
>
> To me that seemes likely to trick userspace developers into
> assuming that ARGB is always available, and then when they
> finally try on hardware that doesn't have ARGB it'll just
> fail miserably.

I think that ship has sailed already, at least for any drivers that
previously silently accepted ARGB8888

BR,
-R

> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel