services/ui/public/interfaces/display/output_protection.mojom - Issue 2675743002: PPAPI: Make output protection API work with mus+ash

Side by Side Diff: services/ui/public/interfaces/display/output_protection.mojom

Issue 2675743002: PPAPI: Make output protection API work with mus+ash (Closed)

Patch Set: Update Created 3 years, 10 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

« services/ui/display/output_protection.cc ('K') | « services/ui/public/interfaces/display/BUILD.gn ('k') | ui/display/manager/chromeos/display_configurator.h » ('j') | ui/display/manager/chromeos/display_configurator.h » ('J')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 // Copyright 2017 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.

	2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

	3 // found in the LICENSE file.

	4

	5 module display.mojom;

	6

	7 // An interface for clients that are allowed to control the display output

	8 // content protection.

	9 interface OutputProtection {
	sky 2017/02/10 19:24:56 Do we care about multiple clients trying to use th Do we care about multiple clients trying to use this interface at once? Should only one client be allowed to use it at a time? Peng 2017/02/10 20:35:47 I am not sure. But I checked the netflix, it will Show quoted text On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > Do we care about multiple clients trying to use this interface at once? Should > only one client be allowed to use it at a time? I am not sure. But I checked the netflix, it will call QueryContentProtectionStatus() repeatedly to make sure the current display is protected. If the display is not protected, I think netflix will call EnableContentProtection() again to enable the protection or stop playing. kcwu@, Could you please give us more detail? Thanks kcwu 2017/02/11 01:45:21 The api allows multiple clients at the same time. Show quoted text On 2017/02/10 20:35:47, Peng wrote: > On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > > Do we care about multiple clients trying to use this interface at once? Should > > only one client be allowed to use it at a time? > > I am not sure. But I checked the netflix, it will call > QueryContentProtectionStatus() repeatedly to make sure the current display is > protected. If the display is not protected, I think netflix will call > EnableContentProtection() again to enable the protection or stop playing. > > kcwu@, Could you please give us more detail? Thanks The api allows multiple clients at the same time. The implementation should enable protection if at least one client request protection. The protection may be disabled due to connection changed or other reasons, so the client will query status to make sure the protection is correctly enabled. Peng 2017/02/13 21:14:46 Refined the document. Show quoted text On 2017/02/11 01:45:21, kcwu wrote: > On 2017/02/10 20:35:47, Peng wrote: > > On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > > > Do we care about multiple clients trying to use this interface at once? > Should > > > only one client be allowed to use it at a time? > > > > I am not sure. But I checked the netflix, it will call > > QueryContentProtectionStatus() repeatedly to make sure the current display is > > protected. If the display is not protected, I think netflix will call > > EnableContentProtection() again to enable the protection or stop playing. > > > > kcwu@, Could you please give us more detail? Thanks > > The api allows multiple clients at the same time. The implementation should > enable protection if at least one client request protection. > The protection may be disabled due to connection changed or other reasons, so > the client will query status to make sure the protection is correctly enabled. Refined the document.
	10 // Queries link status and protection status.

	11 QueryContentProtectionStatus(int64 display_id) => (bool success,

	12 uint32 link_mask,

	13 uint32 protection_mask);

	14

	15 // Requests the desired protection methods.

	16 // \|protection_mask\| is the desired protection methods, which is a bitmask

	17 // of the ContentProtectionMethod values.

	18 // Returns true when the protection request has been made.

	19 EnableContentProtection(int64 display_id,
	sky 2017/02/10 19:24:56 Isn't this more of SetContentProtectionMethod() ? Isn't this more of SetContentProtectionMethod() ? Also, I assume the content protection reverts to non when the interface is closed. If not it should, please document that. Peng 2017/02/10 20:35:47 I assume it too. kcwu@, Could you please confirm Show quoted text On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > Isn't this more of SetContentProtectionMethod() ? > > Also, I assume the content protection reverts to non when the interface is > closed. If not it should, please document that. I assume it too. kcwu@, Could you please confirm it? kcwu 2017/02/11 01:45:21 Yes. When the interface is closed, the request fro Show quoted text On 2017/02/10 20:35:47, Peng wrote: > On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > > Isn't this more of SetContentProtectionMethod() ? > > > > Also, I assume the content protection reverts to non when the interface is > > closed. If not it should, please document that. > > I assume it too. > > kcwu@, Could you please confirm it? Yes. When the interface is closed, the request from the said client will be removed. But the protection maybe still be enabled if there are still other clients requesting protection. About naming, I agree now, "set" seems better than "enable". I forgot why I named it "enable" at that time. Peng 2017/02/13 21:14:46 Refined the document. And renamed it to SetContent Show quoted text On 2017/02/11 01:45:21, kcwu wrote: > On 2017/02/10 20:35:47, Peng wrote: > > On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > > > Isn't this more of SetContentProtectionMethod() ? > > > > > > Also, I assume the content protection reverts to non when the interface is > > > closed. If not it should, please document that. > > > > I assume it too. > > > > kcwu@, Could you please confirm it? > > Yes. When the interface is closed, the request from the said client will be > removed. But the protection maybe still be enabled if there are still other > clients requesting protection. > About naming, I agree now, "set" seems better than "enable". I forgot why I > named it "enable" at that time. Refined the document. And renamed it to SetContentProtection.
	20 uint32 desired_method_mask) => (bool success);
	sky 2017/02/10 19:24:56 Please define the enum in the mojom. Please define the enum in the mojom. Peng 2017/02/10 20:35:47 For the desired_method_mask? But chrome doesn't us Show quoted text On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > Please define the enum in the mojom. For the desired_method_mask? But chrome doesn't use enum for it, chrome just uses uint32_t. And the ContentProtectionMethod[1] is never used as function args type. [1] https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/ui/display/types/display_constants.h?typ... kcwu 2017/02/11 01:45:21 It is a bitmask in order to support other protecti Show quoted text On 2017/02/10 20:35:47, Peng wrote: > On 2017/02/10 19:24:56, sky wrote: > > Please define the enum in the mojom. > > For the desired_method_mask? But chrome doesn't use enum for it, chrome just > uses uint32_t. > And the ContentProtectionMethod[1] is never used as function args type. > > [1] > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/ui/display/types/display_constants.h?typ... It is a bitmask in order to support other protection mechanism. However, so far we only support HDCP.
	21 };

OLD	NEW