[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YfE7aBXqDmJRKEuy@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:15:36 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
Carlis <zhangxuezhi1@...ong.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] fbtft: Unorphan the driver for maintenance
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:51:46PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote:
> On 1/26/22 12:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:31:21PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote:
> >> On 1/26/22 12:18, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >>> On 1/26/22 11:59, Helge Deller wrote:
> >>>> On 1/26/22 11:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>>> P.S. For the record, I will personally NAK any attempts to remove that
> >>>>> driver from the kernel. And this is another point why it's better not
> >>>>> to be under the staging.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree. Same as for me to NAK the disabling of fbcon's acceleration
> >>>> features or even attempting to remove fbdev altogether (unless all
> >>>> relevant drivers are ported to DRM).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> But that will never happen if we keep moving the goal post.
> >>>
> >>> At some point new fbdev drivers should not be added anymore, otherwise
> >>> the number of existing drivers that need conversion will keep growing.
> >>
> >> Good point, and yes you are right!
> >>
> >> I think the rule should be something like:
> >>
> >> New graphics devices (e.g. max. 3 years old from now) usually are
> >> capable to be ported to DRM.
> >> For those graphics cards we should put a hard stop and not include them
> >> as new driver into the fbdev framework. Inclusion for those will only
> >> happen as DRM driver.
> >
> > We made this rule 6 years ago already.
>
> Very good.
>
> Was there any decision how to handle drivers which can't use DRM,
> or for which DRM doesn't make sense?
We fix up DRM to handle such devices.
> So the best way forward regarding those fbtft drivers is probably what
> you suggested: Split them and move those DRM-capable drivers to DRM,
> the others to fbdev, right?
No, port those that work to DRM and just delete the rest as no one is
using them.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists