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

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:12:32 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> 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

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

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:12:32 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> 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

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

Hi Daniel, On Thursday 08 Dec 2016 11:10:05 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display > > >

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

Hi Daniel, On Thursday 08 Dec 2016 11:10:05 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display > > >

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

Hi, > Well, I had that argument with Dave Airlie which I CCed. The "dumb" ones like > bochsdrmfb, cirrusdrmfb, astdrmfb ... all use shadowing, meaning they use a > lot more memory and cannot do any 2D acceleration for fbcon. Well, at least for cirrusdrmfb using 2d accel is kida pointless as

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

Hi, > Well, I had that argument with Dave Airlie which I CCed. The "dumb" ones like > bochsdrmfb, cirrusdrmfb, astdrmfb ... all use shadowing, meaning they use a > lot more memory and cannot do any 2D acceleration for fbcon. Well, at least for cirrusdrmfb using 2d accel is kida pointless as

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

Hi, > The acceleration that most of the 2D things provide isn't ever that > great, and shadowing is a lot more effective if done properly. That is probably true for anything pci-ish, because those devices are optimized for memory writes and reads are horribly slow. So you surely want avoid

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

Hi, > The acceleration that most of the 2D things provide isn't ever that > great, and shadowing is a lot more effective if done properly. That is probably true for anything pci-ish, because those devices are optimized for memory writes and reads are horribly slow. So you surely want avoid

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

On 10/12/16 05:27 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 14:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> As for multi userspace client, well, swapping an mmap between HW and >>> memory backing store is a somewhat solved problem already. >> >> Hm, I didn't know that, but then all existing

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

On 10/12/16 05:27 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 14:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> As for multi userspace client, well, swapping an mmap between HW and >>> memory backing store is a somewhat solved problem already. >> >> Hm, I didn't know that, but then all existing

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 14:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > As for multi userspace client, well, swapping an mmap between HW and > > memory backing store is a somewhat solved problem already. > > Hm, I didn't know that, but then all existing drm drivers have fairly > simplistic fbdev mmap

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 14:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > As for multi userspace client, well, swapping an mmap between HW and > > memory backing store is a somewhat solved problem already. > > Hm, I didn't know that, but then all existing drm drivers have fairly > simplistic fbdev mmap

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 14:57 +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > Despite all of this I still see no reason why a driver could not > expose the static, real frambuffers via private ioctls. You can get > all your fancy acceleration that way. Then fix user-space to use this > API. If enough drivers end up

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 14:57 +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > Despite all of this I still see no reason why a driver could not > expose the static, real frambuffers via private ioctls. You can get > all your fancy acceleration that way. Then fix user-space to use this > API. If enough drivers end up

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:57:24PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > Hey > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > So it is possible, only reason vram dumb buffers look worse is that > >> > there's > >> > only 3 and no one cares about them, vs about 20 and a

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:57:24PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > Hey > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > So it is possible, only reason vram dumb buffers look worse is that > >> > there's > >> > only 3 and no one cares about them, vs about 20 and a very active > >>

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

Hey On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > So it is possible, only reason vram dumb buffers look worse is that there's >> > only 3 and no one cares about them, vs about 20 and a very active community >> > of contributors (also for core drm improvements) for

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

Hey On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > So it is possible, only reason vram dumb buffers look worse is that there's >> > only 3 and no one cares about them, vs about 20 and a very active community >> > of contributors (also for core drm improvements) for the other case. >>

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:48:07PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:41 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > And since I failed to make this clear: There's not really a > > fundamental > > reason ast and cirrus use the dirty tracking for fbdev. It's just that > >

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:48:07PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:41 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > And since I failed to make this clear: There's not really a > > fundamental > > reason ast and cirrus use the dirty tracking for fbdev. It's just that > >

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:44:16PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Yeah if you have discrete vram then your dumb display driver isn't all > > that pretty. We essentially just have the few drivers Dave hacked up to be > > able to

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:44:16PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Yeah if you have discrete vram then your dumb display driver isn't all > > that pretty. We essentially just have the few drivers Dave hacked up to be > > able to

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

Am Freitag, den 09.12.2016, 22:44 +1100 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Yeah if you have discrete vram then your dumb display driver isn't all > > that pretty. We essentially just have the few drivers Dave hacked up to be > > able to

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

Am Freitag, den 09.12.2016, 22:44 +1100 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Yeah if you have discrete vram then your dumb display driver isn't all > > that pretty. We essentially just have the few drivers Dave hacked up to be > > able to

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

Hi Ben, On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> So it is possible, only reason vram dumb buffers look worse is that there's >> only 3 and no one cares about them, vs about 20 and a very active community >> of contributors (also for core drm

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

Hi Ben, On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> So it is possible, only reason vram dumb buffers look worse is that there's >> only 3 and no one cares about them, vs about 20 and a very active community >> of contributors (also for core drm improvements) for the other

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:41 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > And since I failed to make this clear: There's not really a > fundamental > reason ast and cirrus use the dirty tracking for fbdev. It's just that > doing it that way was the fastest way to get those servers booting, and > ever since no

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:41 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > And since I failed to make this clear: There's not really a > fundamental > reason ast and cirrus use the dirty tracking for fbdev. It's just that > doing it that way was the fastest way to get those servers booting, and > ever since no

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Yeah if you have discrete vram then your dumb display driver isn't all > that pretty. We essentially just have the few drivers Dave hacked up to be > able to boot some servers. And there's definitely lots of room for more > shared code for

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Yeah if you have discrete vram then your dumb display driver isn't all > that pretty. We essentially just have the few drivers Dave hacked up to be > able to boot some servers. And there's definitely lots of room for more > shared code for

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 10:08 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > What are people using fbcon for that needs acceleration, this is where I get > a bit lost. > > It's a console, if you aren't sshing into the machine. > > It's main purpose should just be for gathering oopses and you've a lot better > chance

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 10:08 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > What are people using fbcon for that needs acceleration, this is where I get > a bit lost. > > It's a console, if you aren't sshing into the machine. > > It's main purpose should just be for gathering oopses and you've a lot better > chance

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:34:42AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:29AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:34 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > As I mentioned earlier, probably 1 or 2 years ago, Dave made the > > > argument that

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:34:42AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:29AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:34 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > As I mentioned earlier, probably 1 or 2 years ago, Dave made the > > > argument that

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:29AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:34 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > As I mentioned earlier, probably 1 or 2 years ago, Dave made the > > argument that shadowing through memory was necessary and precluded 2D > > accel,

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:29AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:34 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > As I mentioned earlier, probably 1 or 2 years ago, Dave made the > > argument that shadowing through memory was necessary and precluded 2D > > accel,

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:21:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > [back from my walk, the sunset here is stellar ;-)] > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:44:30PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Petazzoni > >

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:21:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > [back from my walk, the sunset here is stellar ;-)] > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:44:30PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Petazzoni > > wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Dec

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:43:13AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > From memory, David claimed you cannot directly work on the fb with a > > > "proper" > > > > DRM driver. Maybe I misunderstood but then the DRM shines

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

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:43:13AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > From memory, David claimed you cannot directly work on the fb with a > > > "proper" > > > > DRM driver. Maybe I misunderstood but then the DRM shines

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

Hi Dave, On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 9 December 2016 at 07:28, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:10 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> > With drmfb you basically have to shadow everything into memory

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

Hi Dave, On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 9 December 2016 at 07:28, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:10 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> > With drmfb you basically have to shadow everything into memory & copy >>> > over everything, and locks you

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

On 9 December 2016 at 07:28, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:10 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > With drmfb you basically have to shadow everything into memory & copy >> > over everything, and locks you out of simple 2D accel. For a simple text

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

On 9 December 2016 at 07:28, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:10 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > With drmfb you basically have to shadow everything into memory & copy >> > over everything, and locks you out of simple 2D accel. For a simple text >> > console the result is

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

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:10 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > With drmfb you basically have to shadow everything into memory & copy > > over everything, and locks you out of simple 2D accel. For a simple text > > console the result is orders of magnitude slower and memory hungry than > > a simple

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

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:10 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > With drmfb you basically have to shadow everything into memory & copy > > over everything, and locks you out of simple 2D accel. For a simple text > > console the result is orders of magnitude slower and memory hungry than > > a simple

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

On Wednesday 23 November 2016 09:12 AM, 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,

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

On Wednesday 23 November 2016 09:12 AM, 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,

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:34 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > As I mentioned earlier, probably 1 or 2 years ago, Dave made the > argument that shadowing through memory was necessary and precluded 2D > accel, though I don't fully remember the root of the argument. If that > is indeed not the

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:34 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > As I mentioned earlier, probably 1 or 2 years ago, Dave made the > argument that shadowing through memory was necessary and precluded 2D > accel, though I don't fully remember the root of the argument. If that > is indeed not the

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > From memory, David claimed you cannot directly work on the fb with a > > "proper" > > DRM driver. Maybe I misunderstood but then the DRM shines by its complete > absence of useful documentation That sentence should have been

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

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > From memory, David claimed you cannot directly work on the fb with a > > "proper" > > DRM driver. Maybe I misunderstood but then the DRM shines by its complete > absence of useful documentation That sentence should have been

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

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 16:21 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Yeah, small drivers like these we have piles now, things exploded a lot > after atomic landed two years ago. And they seem to shrink with every > release a bit more (since lots more drivers gives you lots more insight > into what other

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

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 16:21 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Yeah, small drivers like these we have piles now, things exploded a lot > after atomic landed two years ago. And they seem to shrink with every > release a bit more (since lots more drivers gives you lots more insight > into what other

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

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 10:01 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > DRM drivers don't strike me as suitable for small/slow cores with dumb > > framebuffers or simple 2D only accel, such as the one found in the ASpeed > > BMCs. > > Then the DRM framework should be improved to be suitable. Dave ? :-)

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

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 10:01 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > DRM drivers don't strike me as suitable for small/slow cores with dumb > > framebuffers or simple 2D only accel, such as the one found in the ASpeed > > BMCs. > > Then the DRM framework should be improved to be suitable. Dave ? :-)

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

[back from my walk, the sunset here is stellar ;-)] On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:44:30PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:09 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven

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

[back from my walk, the sunset here is stellar ;-)] On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:44:30PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:09 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > Wut. We have like 20+ small

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

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> If you're this good at mainting gpu and display subsystems, maybe you >> want to take over? > > No please ;-) Now that is indeed the right answer, and

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

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> If you're this good at mainting gpu and display subsystems, maybe you >> want to take over? > > No please ;-) Now that is indeed the right answer, and the attitude we're looking for! Being

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

Hi Thomas, On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:09 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> > Wut. We have like 20+ small atomic drivers nowdays. >> >> That's fast! Only two weeks ago you said: >> >> | Bummer, they

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

Hi Thomas, On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:09 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> > Wut. We have like 20+ small atomic drivers nowdays. >> >> That's fast! Only two weeks ago you said: >> >> | Bummer, they still haven't landed. But afaik there's

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

Hello, On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:09 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Wut. We have like 20+ small atomic drivers nowdays. > > That's fast! Only two weeks ago you said: > > | Bummer, they still haven't landed. But afaik there's at least 4 of > | them floating around in various places ...

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

Hello, On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:09 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Wut. We have like 20+ small atomic drivers nowdays. > > That's fast! Only two weeks ago you said: > > | Bummer, they still haven't landed. But afaik there's at least 4 of > | them floating around in various places ...

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

Dear dri-devel folks, My sincere apologies for hitting send on that mail. I got real mad and angry and typed a mail I shouldn't have submitted - pouring oil into flames for shit and giggles just doesn't help anyone, and it detracts from moving things forward and improving the code and drivers and

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

Hi Daniel, On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt

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

Dear dri-devel folks, My sincere apologies for hitting send on that mail. I got real mad and angry and typed a mail I shouldn't have submitted - pouring oil into flames for shit and giggles just doesn't help anyone, and it detracts from moving things forward and improving the code and drivers and

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

Hi Daniel, On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> > Since the

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> > Since the fbdev framework is

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

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> > Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display >> > drivers >> >

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

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> > Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display >> > drivers >> > should be made

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +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

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:01:19PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +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

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

On 08/12/16 03:01, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +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

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

On 08/12/16 03:01, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +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

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

On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +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

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

On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:03 +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

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

Hello, On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:12:32 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > 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

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

Hello, On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:12:32 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all

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

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display drivers >>> should be made

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Daniel, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> Since the fbdev framework is in maintenance mode and all new display drivers >> should be made with the DRM framework, remove the fbdev drivers

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

Hi Daniel, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> 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. >>

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

On 23/11/16 10:19, Daniel Vetter 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

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

On 23/11/16 10:19, Daniel Vetter 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

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

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

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

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

[RFC PATCH 0/3] staging: remove fbdev drivers

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. Tomi Tomi Valkeinen (3): staging:

[RFC PATCH 0/3] staging: remove fbdev drivers

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. Tomi Tomi Valkeinen (3): staging: