On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 11:22:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 09:15:36PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 09:07:41PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 08:53:13PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > On Tue, 03 Feb 2026, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > OTHO evdi: https://github.com/DisplayLink/evdi has been kept out > > > > > of the kernel for pretty much the same reasons by the drm/kms folks. > > > > > > > > > > At least AFAIK there still is no way to present virtual kms capable > > > > > display outputs backed by userspace in the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > I completely understand where you're coming from wrt v4l2-loopback > > > > > support (or something equivalent) but asking for this really is > > > > > the same as asking for the evdi driver to get merged, which AFAIK > > > > > has been blocked for the reason of avoiding proprietary userspace > > > > > display output drivers (I guess there might be technical reasons too). > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this is the same thing, though. > > > > > > > > The DRM subsystem does require an open source userspace for new uAPI, > > > > which is stricter than most subsystems [1]. Other than that, I don't > > > > think anyone's actively keeping evdi out of the kernel. AFAIK there > > > > hasn't been a serious attempt at upstreaming it either. Which is pretty > > > > much because there's no open userspace. Nobody's cared enough to either > > > > write one or open source the existing one for a decade [2]. > > > > > > This is unrelated of ACK/NACK and not saying this as a "selling point" > > > but realistically speaking based on what I've read I have extremely hard > > > time to believe that my driver would enable a market of proprietary > > > camera drivers :-) Actually, after looking up mipi.org based on Hans > > > response, I even more so believe that this is the case. > > > > With my maintainer hat on, I'd get the nack better if the driver was > > intrusive on changes to V4L2 subsystem itself. Then, it accumlates > > weight to other maintainers, and as we all have limited amount of time > > in our lives, I do get that. But since the driver would be compliance > > aligning leaf driver with a MAINTAINER entry of its own, it should not > > be a huge burden for V4L2 community and kernel maintainers. And I do > > have a track record of being long-term on maintaining stuff that I vomit > > out. > > I don't dispute that. Even though we haven't really worked together on > kernel development, I have no prejudice towards your commitment as a > driver maintainer :-) There's nothing personal in this mail thread.
Absolutely non taken either (and neither from my side). > > > That also does make difference as there are some guarantees that the > > end product would not be left into rotten. > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart BR, Jarkko
