Xdamage isn’t a thing if you’re using a compositor for what it’s worth. It’s more expensive to try to incrementally render than to just render the entire scene (for a GPU anyway).

And regardless, the HW path still involves copying the entire frame buffer - it’s literally in the name.

At the software level yes, but it seems nobody has taken the time to do this at the hardware level as well. This is LG's stab at it.

What’s your metal model of what happens when a dirty region is updated and now we need to get that buffer on the display?

It was, but xdamage is part of the composting side of the final bitmap image generation, before that final bitmap is clocked out to the display.

The frame buffer, at least the portion of the GPU responsible for reading the frame buffer and shipping the contents out over the port to the display, the communications cable to the display screen itself, and the display screen were still reading, transmitting, and refreshing every pixel of the display at 60hz (or more).

This LG display tech. claims to be able to turn that last portion's speed down to a 1Hz rate from whatever it usually is running at.

You forget that all modern UI toolkits brag about who has the highest frame rate, instead of updating only what's changed and only when it changes.

Sharp MIP makes every pixel an SRAM bit: near-zero current and no refresh necessary. The full color moral equivalent of Sharp MIP would be 3 DACs per pixel. TFT (à la LG Oxide) is closer to DRAM, except the charge level isn't just high/low.

So, no, there is a meaningful difference in the nature of the circuits.