On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:44:23PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we > > capable of learning from the past? > > No we don't. And no-one intends to. I am fully aware of the discussion > that introduced the clock-dependencies to simplefb, and I gladly > accept patches that add such support to SimpleDRM. Did anyone say > otherwise? This series adds initial support for the devices _we_ know > and can test (which is x86 and RPi, in my case). If someone wants > support for more devices, please send patches. Why does this have to > be included (or even discussed) as part of this submission? You're right, it does not have to be included until there is a usecase. But on the otherhand i have become pretty allergic to this as that other discussion was completely useless and pointless and stemmed only from the fact that people had been kidding themselves all along that simplefb was going to be simple and not would need anything extra. If we can avoid fooling ourselves to the same extent as we did before, then putting this off until there is a real usecase is perfectly fine by me. If not, just add this trivial generic addition straight from an existing example. Luc Verhaegen. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
