linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] staging: remove fbdev drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:49:44 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc:     linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com>,
        Arnaud Patard <arnaud.patard@...-net.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] staging: remove fbdev drivers

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/11/16 10:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display drivers
> >> should be made with the DRM framework, remove the fbdev drivers from staging.
> >>
> >> Note: the patches are created with git format-patch -D, so they can't be
> >> applied. Only for review.
> > 
> > I only want to remove these drivers if we have the same functionality in
> > mainline for their hardware.  If not, that's a bit rude to those who
> > actually use them today, don't you think?
> 
> What does it mean for a driver to be in staging? I thought it's
> basically the same as the driver being out-of-tree, with the difference
> that the code is in a central git repository for easier co-operation.

Yes, but it also allows people to use their hardware, for drivers that
are not "quite ready".

> If that's what staging means, then I would reject the staging fbdev
> drivers the same way as I'd reject new fbdev drivers sent as patches to
> the list.

Rejecting valid drivers for hardware that people have today is not a
nice thing.  If you want to just move them into staging so that people
can get their hardware working while people port to the new apis, I will
be glad to take them.

> Or do you mean that we should keep the drivers in staging until there's
> a matching DRM driver, but drop any plans to move the drivers from
> staging to drivers/video/? If so, I'm fine with that. This is an RFC,
> mostly to raise some discussion and push people to actually write those
> DRM drivers =).

I do not want to move these to drivers/video/ and they should just stay
where they are until a matching DRM driver is present in the tree.

thanks,

greg k-h