On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:53:15PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Hamza Mahfooz <hamza.mahfooz@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/29/24 12:43, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever > >> updated. The information is misleading at best. > >> > >> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst: > >> > >> The driver date, formatted as YYYYMMDD, is meant to identify the date > >> of the latest modification to the driver. However, as most drivers > >> fail to update it, its value is mostly useless. The DRM core prints it > >> to the kernel log at initialization time and passes it to userspace > >> through the DRM_IOCTL_VERSION ioctl. > >> > >> Stop printing the driver date at init, and start returning the empty > >> string "" as driver date through the DRM_IOCTL_VERSION ioctl. > >> > >> The driver date initialization in drivers and the struct drm_driver date > >> member can be removed in follow-up. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I would prefer if it was dropped entirely in this patch, but if you feel > > that would require too much back and forth, I'm okay with what is > > currently proposed. > > I can if that's what people prefer, but decided to start with this for > the inevitable discussion before putting in the effort. ;) Might also be a good idea to wait a bit in case there's any regression reports for really old userspace. But I guess there's not a high chance for that to happen here, so imo fine to just go ahead right away. -Sima > > > Reviewed-by: Hamza Mahfooz <hamza.mahfooz@xxxxxxx> > > Thanks, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
