On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi all, > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and > throw them out here for discussions: > > - When's a driver small enough for a shared tree, and when is a > separate tree a good idea? i915 and amdgpu are definitely big, and > there's definitely drivers who are really small and in-between it's > unclear. Personally I think this is easy to do with a sliding scale, > with using topic branches (we can do them in drm-misc easily) for > bigger stuff, and if that's a common thing, split out the driver > (thanks to the drm-tip integration tree there's not much of a > difference in handling conflicts due to that anyway). > > - Should it be an entire separate tree for soc drivers? Problem here > is that we lack a volunteer group (and imo it really should be a group > to avoid the single-maintainer troubles) to run that. Big +1. In addition to spreading out the workload, driver maintainers should still exercise ownership/stewardship. > I think it's > easier to proof the process first, and if we want a separate tree, > split that out later on. This is the same thing we've done with > drm-misc, first with a topic branch in drm-intel.git, then separate. I > think it worked really well. Sounds reasonable. > > - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by > the author? We have a bunch of drivers with effectively just 1 person > working on it, where getting real review is hard. But otoh a few of > those 1-person drivers will become popular, and then it's good to > start with establishing peer-review early on. I also think that > requiring peer-review is good to share best practices and knowledge > between different people in our community, not just to make sure the > code is correct. For all these reasons I'm leaning towards not making > an exception for drivers, and requiring the same amount of review for > them if they go in through drm-misc as for any other patch. At the risk of being on the hook for more driver reviews, I think we should strive to review and fallback if it can't be sustained. > > - Who's elligible? I think we could start small with a few volunteers > and their drivers, and then anyone who's willing. I think we could safely volunteer some drivers we haven't seen pull requests from in a while. > > - Should we force new submissions to be managed in that shared treee? > I think for initial submission a separate pull request for > approval-by-Dave is good (but we could do that with topic branches > too). And it's also way too early to tell, probably better to first > figure out how well this goes. > > - CI, needed? It would be great, but we're not there yet :( Atm > drm-misc just has a bunch of defconfigs that need to always compile, > and that's it. Long term I definitely want more, but we're just not > there yet. And it's a problem in general for drm-misc. > > - dim scripts. Since we don't have a github flow where we can > reasonably automate stuff on the server side we need something to > automate on the client side. Thus far almost everyone seemed ok with > the scripting that's used to drive drm-misc/intel/tip, but we can > always improve things. And long term we can rework the approach > however we want to really. No issues with dim on my side, seems like a natural choice. > > - Other stuff I've missed? > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
