The add_notification_create_surface API accepts a simple
wl_listener instead of a ivi-shell specific notification
function. Therefore, the API is renamed to
add_listener_create_surface.
This change has several advantages:
1. Code cleanup
2. No dynamic memory allocation. Listeners are allocated
by controller plugins
3. Remove API is not needed. Controller plugins can easily
remove the listener link.
The remove API is removed too:
- ivi_layout_remove_notification_create_surface
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
The layer_add_notification API accepts a simple
wl_listener instead of a ivi-shell specific notification
function. Therefore, the API is renamed to layer_add_listener.
This change has several advantages:
1. Code cleanup
2. No dynamic memory allocation. Listeners are allocated
by controller plugins
3. Remove API is not needed. Controller plugins can easily
remove the listener link.
This patch also remove two APIs which are not needed:
- ivi_layout_layer_remove_notification
- ivi_layout_layer_remove_notification_by_callback
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
The surface_add_notification API accepts a simple
wl_listener instead of a ivi-shell specific notification
function. Therefore, the API is renamed to surface_add_listener.
This change has several advantages:
1. Code cleanup
2. No dynamic memory allocation. Listeners are allocated
by controller plugins
3. Remove API is not needed. Controller plugins can easily
remove the listener link.
This patch also remove two APIs which are not needed:
- ivi_layout_surface_remove_notification
- ivi_layout_surface_remove_notification_by_callback
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
I moved the event_mask to ivi_layout_*_properties struct,
so that it is easily accessible with get_properties_of_*
APIs.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
content_observer_notification is removed by the commit:
193e301c74.
Therefore, this callback function is unused.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Add more sanity checks to get_ivi_shell_surface() just in case.
If the configure hook is set, we must always have non-NULL
configure_private.
Check the ivi_shell_surface matches the surface.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Eugen Friedrich <friedrix@gmail.com>
This should not get called unless there is an ivi_shell_surface.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Eugen Friedrich <friedrix@gmail.com>
Copied from desktop-shell/input-panel.c, add a label function for the
input panel.
This patch strictly reduces the difference between input-panel.c and
input-panel-ivi.c.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Eugen Friedrich <friedrix@gmail.com>
To be used by the Weston timeline feature for identifying surfaces in a
trace. The 'get_label' functionality can also be used by any debugging
code, too.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Eugen Friedrich <friedrix@gmail.com>
The controller plugins use IVI Layout API with weston outputs.
Therefore, this API is not required.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
The controller plugins does not use ivi screens for IVI layout APIs.
They use weston outputs directly. Therefore, this API is unnecessary.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
It is an internal API, which returns ivi_layout_screen
for a pregiven weston_output.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
IVI layout APIs now are called with weston_output pointers,
instead of ivi_layout_screen pointers.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
The compositor data struct already has a list of weston outputs.
Therefore, this API is not required.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
The controller plugins can get the screen resolution directly from
weston output. Therefore, this API is not required.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
ivi-screen does not have an id. IVI layout implementation is using
id of weston output. Therefore, this API is unnecessary.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Wataru Natsume <wnatsume@jp.adit-jv.com>
The width of the first base layer is used for all panels.
Every display has a base layer which is as big as the
display. Therefore, it is wrong to use the width of the
first base layer for all panels, because every display
could have a different resolution.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
In current implementation, the size of the first application
layer is used for the background image of a display.
This is wrong because:
1. The background surface should be fullscreen.
2. Each display could have different resolution.
We should use the size of the base layer of each display
for the background image.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Direct fail_on_null calls now produce output like:
[weston-info] clients/weston-info.c:714: out of memory
xmalloc, et al produce output on failure like:
[weston-info] out of memory (-1)
Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
It is not necessary check the ivi-id of pregiven objects (layer or
surface). Traversing the list of all objects is sure to find the exact
same pointer we start with, bugs aside.
The controller modules are responsible for providing valid pointers. We
cannot protect from invalid pointers anyway.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
[Pekka: fix subject, add commit message]
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
It is not necessary check the ivi-id of pregiven objects (layer or
surface). Traversing the list of all objects is sure to find the exact
same pointer we start with, bugs aside.
The controller modules are responsible for providing valid pointers. We
cannot protect from invalid pointers anyway.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
[Pekka: commit message]
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
It is not necessary check the ivi-id of pregiven objects (layer or
surface). Traversing the list of all objects is sure to find the exact
same pointer we start with, bugs aside.
The controller modules are responsible for providing valid pointers. We
cannot protect from invalid pointers anyway.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
[Pekka: commit message]
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
It is not necessary check the ivi-id of pregiven objects (layer or
surface). Traversing the list of all objects is sure to find the exact
same pointer we start with, bugs aside.
The controller modules are responsible for providing valid pointers. We
cannot protect from invalid pointers anyway.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
[Pekka: commit message]
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
It is not necessary check the ivi-id of pregiven objects (layer or
surface). Traversing the list of all objects is sure to find the exact
same pointer we start with, bugs aside.
The controller modules are responsible for providing valid pointers. We
cannot protect from invalid pointers anyway.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
[Pekka: commit message]
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
In all my rebases, this got accidentally left behind. The implementation
was removed in 4a7503976b but
32ca791df8 reintroduced it.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
This new header encapsulates the API that ivi-layout offers to
ivi-shell.c to call.
ivi-shell.c no longer uses ivi-layout-private.h. This limits the
ivi-layout internal structures to just ivi-layout code.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Now that ivi-layout calls directly into ivi-shell.c, this signal is no
longer used. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
For some reason, it seems that ivi-layout.c has tried hard to avoid
calling directly into ivi-shell.c. This means there is a jump through
hoops just to get the configure event sent to the clients. Ivi-shell
registers a listener for a ivi-layout signal for sending the event.
Instead, let ivi-layout.c call directly into ivi-shell.c, and expose a
function to send out the configure events. This reduces some confusion
on who calls what.
The main idea though is that this makes ivi-shell.c not depend on struct
ivi_layout_surface fields directly anymore. In following patches,
ivi_layout_surface can be made opaque for ivi-shell.c.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
It's our standard practice. This file will get used a bit more in the
future.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Every .c file must include config.h as the first thing.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
The content observer notification struct and its
set API (ivi_layout_surface_set_content_observer)
are removed. Because they are unused.
Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
If surface transitions are not removed when surface is being removed, it
can lead to crash later when transition will finish, as it will try to
reference already freed memory.
This change exposes function that can remove all existing transitions
for given surface and it is being called during surface cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Mateusz Polrola <mateuszx.potrola@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Emre Ucan <eucan@de.adit-jv.com>
Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
get_surfaces_on_layer() allocates memory and stores the pointer to
'ivisurfs'. But it was not freed.
Signed-off-by: Wataru Natsume <WATARU_NATSUME@xddp.denso.co.jp>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
The warning of ivisurface reassign can be removed. It is ok to reassign
a surface to a layer it is already on.
The warning started to show up during normal operations since patch
"hmi-controller: remove duplicate commit_changes in random mode".
Signed-off-by: Wataru Natsume <WATARU_NATSUME@xddp.denso.co.jp>
[Pekka: rewrote commit message, removed unneeded comments.]
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Previous code cleaned up surfaces in layer once and then added
surfaces to a layer in random. In this flow, two commitchanges are
required.
Signed-off-by: Nobuhiko Tanibata <NOBUHIKO_TANIBATA@xddp.denso.co.jp>
[WATARU_NATSUME@xddp.denso.co.jp: Removes unnecessary check]
Signed-off-by: Wataru Natsume <WATARU_NATSUME@xddp.denso.co.jp>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Ucan, Emre (ADITG/SW1)
Pekka Paalanen
Bryce Harrington
Mateusz Polrola
Wataru Natsume