Surface order issues where surfaces comes from different processes ?

Gunnar Andersson gandersson at genivi.org
Mon Feb 20 09:23:05 EST 2017


On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 13:07 +0000, MATTHIAS BLOCH wrote:
> C1-INTERNAL

C1000-PUBLIC-MAILING-LIST ;-)

> 
> An action was to send to the LM mailing list.
> We didn't conclude anything since perhaps LM guys have an idea.

I have to agree with Matthias on this one:  The first step was to seek out
advice from layer mgmt team.  Or to put it another way, I also agree that we
said that it needs redesign, but the question is still _how_ isn't it?

By the way, I saw some email that suggested that for the AGL system they are
also considering similar issues, not exactly the same issue, but the issue
that in current design (of GDP also) you need to somehow know and define
surface IDs beforehand?  I don't have all the details clear but it is a
topic we have had several times before in GENIVI.  It seems like there's a
bigger discussion about compositing in general that needs fixing, and maybe
the outcome of that will also provide guidelines to FSA redesign?

Those who are well aware of it, could you write up a summary of where we are
and where we want to go?

Anyway, hope to get some input on Matthias' mail also.

- Gunnar

> 
> Sincères Salutations / Best Regards
> Matthias Bloch
> 
[trimmed]





More information about the genivi-ivi-layer-management mailing list