On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:48 AM, Pekka Paalanen
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:34:30 +
> Simon Ser cont...@emersion.fr wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:26 AM, Pekka Paalanen ppaala...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:39:20 +
> > > Simon Ser co
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:34:30 +
Simon Ser wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:26 AM, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:39:20 +
> > Simon Ser cont...@emersion.fr wrote:
> >
> > > Currently the property docs don't specify whether it's okay for two
> > > planes
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:26 AM, Pekka Paalanen
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:39:20 +
> Simon Ser cont...@emersion.fr wrote:
>
> > Currently the property docs don't specify whether it's okay for two planes
> > to
> > have the same zpos value and what user-space should expect in th
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:39:20 +
Simon Ser wrote:
> Currently the property docs don't specify whether it's okay for two planes to
> have the same zpos value and what user-space should expect in this case.
>
> The rule mentionned in the past was to disambiguate with object IDs. However
> some d
Currently the property docs don't specify whether it's okay for two planes to
have the same zpos value and what user-space should expect in this case.
The rule mentionned in the past was to disambiguate with object IDs. However
some drivers break this rule (that's why the ordering is documented as
