On 07/01/13 02:01, Dave Airlie wrote:
how about instead of writing: "However, at least I've taken the time to_think_ about what I'm doing and realise that there_is_ scope here for the DRM core to improve, rather than burying this stuff deep inside my driver like everyone else has. That's no reason to penalise patches from the "good guys" who think" you go with "I noticed this piece of functionality could be refactored, here is a patch adding them to the core, does anyone think its a good idea?"
Dave, at least on this point I do share Russell's impression. I've sent bunch of patches improving TDA998x and DRM+DT: - TDA998x irq handling - ignored - TDA998x sync fix - ignored - Fix drm I2C slave encoder probing I am aware that this is not an easy job nor one you get much appreciation for. But, back when TDA998x driver was published, all my comments were basically answered with "Oh, I know. Maybe someday somebody will fix it". I am not being paid for any of this, but have a strong intrinsic motivation here. But I am loosing interest in sending fixes for DRM stuff because my (personal) impression is the same Russell has: Depending on who sends patches, they get merged independent of how broken they are - others are discussed to death. Sebastian _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
