On Tuesday, January 18th, 2022 at 12:41, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:41 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Jani, > > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 1/17/22 22:40, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> Seems like few people read linux-fbdev these days. > > > >> > > > >> How much traffic is there to linux-fbdev that is *not* Cc'd to dri-devel > > > >> also? > > > > > > > > Doesn't seem like much traffic - which IMHO is OK for such a tree with > > > > mostly just maintenance patches. > > > > > > > >> Do we still need a separate linux-fbdev mailing list at all? > > > > > > > > Yes. I want to have it seperate of dri-devel. > > > > Actually I'd prefer to drop dri-devel from the list where patches > > > > for fbdev are sent... > > > > > > Disagreed. If anything, this thread shows we can't have fbdev and drm in > > > silos of their own. > > > > Unless DRM drops fbdev support. Isn't that the long-term plan anyway? > > No. There's way too much old stuff still using the fbdev interface to > do that. We've even done things like standardize the vblank wait > ioctl, because people need that. Kind of related: I wonder, could we document somewhere that fbdev is a deprecated uAPI? ie. new user-space shouldn't use it and should prefer DRM. I don't see that mentioned anywhere, although it seems like it's the consensus among all kernel developers I've talked to.
