Hello Daniel, On 1/17/22 11:02, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Helge > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:18 PM Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The fbdev layer is orphaned, but seems to need some care. >> So I'd like to step up as new maintainer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> >> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index 5d0cd537803a..ce47dbc467cc 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -7583,11 +7583,12 @@ W: http://floatingpoint.sourceforge.net/emulator/index.html >> F: arch/x86/math-emu/ >> >> FRAMEBUFFER LAYER >> -L: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> +M: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> >> L: linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> -S: Orphan > > Maybe don't rush maintainer changes in over the w/e without even bothering > to get any input from the people who've been maintaining it before. > > Because the status isn't entirely correct, fbdev core code and fbcon and > all that has been maintained, but in bugfixes only mode. And there's very > solid&important reasons to keep merging these patches through a drm tree, > because that's where all the driver development happens, and hence also > all the testing (e.g. the drm test suite has some fbdev tests - the only > automated ones that exist to my knowledge - and we run them in CI). So > moving that into an obscure new tree which isn't even in linux-next yet is > no good at all. > > Now fbdev driver bugfixes is indeed practically orphaned and I very much > welcome anyone stepping up for that, but the simplest approach there would > be to just get drm-misc commit rights and push the oddball bugfix in there > directly. But also if you want to do your own pull requests to Linus for > that I don't care and there's really no interference I think, so > whatever floats. > > But any code that is relevant for drm drivers really needs to go in through > drm trees, nothing else makes much sense. > > I guess you're first action as newly minted fbdev maintainer is going to be to > clean up the confusion you just created. Most of my machines depend on a working fbdev layer since drm isn't (and probably -due to technical requirements of DRM- won't be) available for those. So, since the fbdev drivers were marked orphaned, I decided to step up as maintainer. I see your point that at least the fbdev core code and fbcon are shared between DRM and fbdev. For me it's really not important to drive any patches through a seperate tree, so I'd be happy to join the drm-misc tree if you feel it's necessary. (By the way, adding my tree to for-next was on my todo list...) What's important for me though is, to keep fbdev actively maintained, which means: a) to get fixes which were posted to fbdev mailing list applied if they are useful & correct, b) to include new drivers (for old hardware) if they arrive (probably happens rarely but there can be). I know of at least one driver which won't be able to support DRM.... Of course, if the hardware is capable to support DRM, it should be written for DRM and not applied for fbdev. c) reintroduce the state where fbcon is fast on fbdev. This is important for non-DRM machines, either when run on native hardware or in an emulator. d) not break DRM development Especially regarding c) I complained in [1] and got no feedback. I really would like to understand where the actual problems were and what's necessary to fix them. Helge [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/feea8303-2b83-fc36-972c-4fc8ad723bde@xxxxxx
