On 11/29/2012 04:47 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:21:04PM +0200, Terje Bergström wrote: >> On 28.11.2012 23:23, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> This could be problematic. Since drivers/video and >>> drivers/gpu/drm are separate trees, this would entail a >>> continuous burden on keeping both trees synchronized. While I >>> realize that eventually it might be better to put the host1x >>> driver in a separate place to accomodate for its use by other >>> subsystems, I'm not sure moving it here right away is the best >>> approach. >> >> I understand your point, but I hope also that we'd end up with >> something that can be used as basis for the downstream kernel to >> migrate to upstream stack. >> >> The key point here is to make the API between nvhost and tegradrm >> as small and robust to changes as possible. > > I agree. But I also fear that there will be changes eventually and > having both go in via different tree requires those trees to be > merged in a specific order to avoid breakage should the API change. > This will be particularly ugly in linux-next. > > That's why I explicitly proposed to take this into > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra for the time being, until we can be > reasonably sure that the API is fixed. Then I'm fine with moving it > wherever seems the best fit. Even then there might be the > occasional dependency, but they should get fewer and fewer as the > code matures. It is acceptable for one maintainer to ack patches, and another maintainer to merge a series that touches both "their own" code and code owned by another tree. This should of course only be needed when inter-module APIs change; changes to code within a module shouldn't require this. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
