It's always enabled for very long time now (at least since meson transition),
there doesn't seem to be any need to ever disable it again. So we can reduce
code complexity by removing all the ifdef's.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new PostCreateScreenResources screen hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extensions that need to be called after the CreateScreenResources
proc had been run, must wrap the screen proc vector directly (all of them
forming kind of daisy chain), and so - when called - temporarily restore the
previous one, call it, wrap again, and if the call was successful finally
doing it's own stuff. (same is done for many other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
Instead introducing a simple approach for letting extension hook into a
post-CreateScreenResources callback list safely, w/o having to care much
about side effects with the call chain. Extensions now can simply register
their business logic and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with the
ScreenRec's internal structures.
Note that these hooks are executed *AFTER* the original CreateScreenResources()
proc had been called SUCCESSFULLY (returned TRUE), so callees can rely on
the DDX/driver had already done it's job.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
This one doesn't look so trivial at first glance, but I've checked that
other functions called by xf86CrtcCloseScreen() just free'ing up some
memory and removing the CRTCs from some lists - thus a change in
execution order really shouldn't matter at all.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new screen close notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific actions on screen closing implemented by wrapping
the ScreenRec's PositionWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are storing the
original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one. On each
call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back again.
When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
screen closing path safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their hook proc (and an
opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with the
ScreenRec's internal structures. These hooks are called before the original
vector (usually handled by DDX/screen driver directly) is called.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new window destructor hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new window destructor hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for complicated wrapping/unwrapping: it's always just
miCreateResources() anyway - so we can call it directly.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used anywhere, neither internal nor external.
(BTW, those defines are only used within xf86-video-fbdev, so they maybe
could be moved over there.)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used anywhere, neither internal nor external (drivers), so no need
to keep it any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used anywhere, neither internal nor external (drivers), so no need
to keep it any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used anywhere, neither internal nor external (drivers), so no need
to keep it any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used anywhere, neither internal nor external (drivers), so no need
to keep it any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used anywhere, neither internal nor external (drivers), so no need
to keep it any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by any external consumers, only within the same source file,
so can become static.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header has now become obsolete. There're also no external consumers
(drivers, etc) left, so it now finally can be dropped entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's safer not relying on all ScreenProc's actually filled.
../dix/events.c: In function ‘CheckPhysLimits’:
../dix/events.c:780:14: warning: dereference of NULL ‘pScreen’ [CWE-476] [-Wanalyzer-null-dereference]
780 | (*pScreen->SetCursorPosition)
| ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Be more cautious on possible NULL pointers or not yet registered
devPrivates. Better a gracefully fail instead of hard segfault.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Even though it *should* never be actually hit, it's still safer
to check for NULL instead of letting us crash with segfault.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Even though it's unlikely ever getting it, still safer to have some
extra checks / asserts than unexpected segfault.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Safer (and easier to understand) if we look at the result pointer
instead of the counter for testing whether device wasn't found.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Better try to handle memory allocation gracefully than just hard
crashing by segfault.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Even though chances are really low it's ever getting hit, it's still safer
to have some sanity checks (which don't cost us much) than risking segfault.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult