On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 04:29:34PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > On 1/24/22 12:50, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > On 1/24/22 12:33, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >>> Thoughts? > >> > >> I can't say I approve keeping fbdev alive, but... > >> > >> With fbdev emulation, every DRM driver is an fbdev driver too. So > >> CONFIG_FB_DRIVER is somewhat misleading. Better add an option like > >> CONFIG_FBCON_HW_SCROLLING and have it selected by the fbdev drivers that > >> absolutely need HW acceleration. That option would then protect the rsp > >> code. > > I'm not a fan of something like CONFIG_FBCON_HW_SCROLLING, but I'm not > against it either. > For me it sounds that this is not the real direction you want to go, > which is to prevent that any other drivers take the framebuffer before > you take it with simpledrm or similiar. > CONFIG_FBCON_HW_SCROLLING IMHO just disables the (from your POV) neglectable accleration part. > With an option like CONFIG_FB_DRIVER (maybe better: CONFIG_FB_LEGACY_DRIVERS) > it's an easy option for distros to disable all of the legacy drivers > from being built & shipped. > > Instead of CONFIG_FBCON_HW_SCROLLING we could also choose > CONFIG_FBCON_LEGACY_ACCELERATION, because it includes fillrect() as well... +1 on that name, since on the lwn discussions I've also seen some noise about resurrecting scrollback. And I guess we could do that too and then just add it all behind that same option. -Daniel > > Agreed that this option would be better and allow distros > > to disable the code that was reverted. > > Yes, but IMHO it doesn't hurt either to leave it in. > It doesn't break anything at least. > Anyway... > > Helge -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
