On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: [snip] >>> >>> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing >>> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver. >>> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO >> >> Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"? >> Is that established kernel terminology? >> >> I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is >> loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is >> the driver that would not consult this function, right? > > We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be > called generic or firmware driver. > > My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation > detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc > driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test > for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of > the driver and not even load it. > > How about we invert the test function and use something like > > bool drm_firmware_drivers_only() > That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me. There was also another bikeshed about where to put the function declaration, I added to <drm/drm_mode_config.h> but with that name I believe that should be in <drm/drm_drv.h> instead. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Linux Engineering Red Hat
