On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:20:14 +0100 Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'm not going to argue against that. :-) Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgpdBBUj0FxLx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
