Hi Am 25.05.21 um 15:08 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:53:56PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:Hi Am 21.05.21 um 19:18 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:On 5/21/21 6:53 PM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: [snip]So what with all the drivers which do _not_ have drm in their name?
Also
I'm never sure how much these are uapi or not ...That someone could threat as an uapi is a fair point indeed.Why do we need a suffix anyway?Yes, I thought the same and was torn about posting a patch to just removethe suffix. I don't think users care that much if is a fb device from
a
fbdev driver or a DRM driver using the fbdev emulation.Yup. I don't see how anything in userspace would depend on the exact name; especially since fbdev emulation only provides basic features. (I'd welcome a counter examples that proves me wrong.) IMHO we can risk it to remove the suffix entirely. But that needs an ack from Daniel or Dave.If you guys with your distro hats on all think it doesn't matter, then yeah I'm all for dropping the somewhat silly -drm or drmfb suffixes. I think that was just way back so it's easier to know you've loaded the right driver, back when there was both drm and native fbdev drivers around. But now I think for new hw there's only drm, so should be all fine.
Suse doesn't use fbdev, except for some outliers; most notably hypervfb and generic efifb/vesafb. Both are now being replaced with drm code. From what I've seen, it's the same for other distros. And X11 checks for the existence of device files anyway IIRC.
Best regards Thomas
-Daniel
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
