On 28 April 2016 at 07:45, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 April 2016 at 10:47, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 09:17:13PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> Dave Airlie pointed out that "polluting" the headers in a manner as seen >>> with this series might not be too wise. David H, can we hear your view >>> on the topic ? >> >> For armada and etnaviv, it seems sensible, so I'd be happy to see the >> change go in if it means less work for others. >> >> Hence, for patch 2 and 4, >> >> Acked-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Thank you Russel ! > > > Dave, David H, > > So far we've got 6 (if we count the one Rob gave over IRC) acks on the topic. > > How do we proceed with this - would you like me to elaborate more on > the topic, do you see some serious downfalls with the proposal ? [And > yes I agree that tweaking the generator scripts to produce these might > be better but that's a bit out of my reach atm] > > If you are OK should we merge the series via drm-next or danvet's > drm-misc ? ... once I we hear from a few more people of course - > mainly AMD and Ben. > I still think this should be all or nothing, I don't see why the drm headers are special here. So I'd still prefer the kernel add this to all uapi headers when it generates them rather than us manually adding it to all of them, and forgetting when we add new ones. Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
