Hi, On 23/01/14 16:14, David Herrmann wrote: > Hi > > Another round of SimpleDRM patches. I somehow lost track of the last ones and as > this is a major rewrite, I'll just start at v1 again. > > Some comments up-front: > > - @Ingo: Patch #1 and #2 are unchanged from the previous ML discussions. I > included them in this series as the other patches depend on them. Could you > pick them up for the x86 tree? The other 9 patches won't make it in 3.14 so > no reason to put them through the DRM tree. > All mentioned issues should be addressed. If there's still sth missing, > please let me know. > > - The DRM patches depend on my "DRM Anonymous Inode" patches. But it should be > trivial to apply them on drm-next (I think only one line needs to be changed: > i_mapping => dev_mapping). > > - I tested the SimpleDRM fbdev fallback with linux-console+Xorg and it works > fine. The DRM backend is only tested with some DRM tests I have locally. I > have no idea how to make Xorg pick up a specific /dev/dri/card0 card. It > always tells me "no screens found" (as the underlying device is not marked as > boot_vga..). If someone knows how to tell Xorg to use card0, I'd gladly test > this. But I'm no longer used to writing xorg.confs.. > > > This series introduces two new concepts: sysfb and SimpleDRM > Sysfb is just a generalization of the x86-sysfb concept. It allows to register > firmware-framebuffers with the system as platform-devices. This way, drivers can > properly bind to these devices and we prevent multiple drivers from accessing > the same firmware-framebuffer. > Sysfb also provides hooks to get a safe handover to real hw-drivers (like i915). > Please see the "video: sysfb: add generic firmware-fb interface" patch for a > thorough description of the API. This patch also adds a rather verbose > documentation of all known firmware-fb facilities. > > As second part, this series introduces SimpleDRM. It's a very basic DRM driver > that can replace efifb, vesafb, simplefb and friends. It's 100% compatible to > the "udl" DRM driver, so user-space like xf86-video-modesetting can pick them up > just fine. User-space that cannot deal with drmModeDirtyFB() (like weston and > friends) currently cannot use SimpleDRM. However, that's also true for all other > DRM drivers which provide shadow framebuffers. We could provide something like > FB-DEFIO, but that's just useless overhead to paper of lazy user-space. > > I have tested this with all hardware that I have at home, with a lot hand-over > combinations (with/without SYSFB, with efifb/vesafb/simplefb, with SimpleDRM, > ...) and all worked great so far. What's the status with this one? Headed for 3.15? Are the SimpleDRM and sysfb linked somehow? (I.e. do they need to be in the same series?) And jfyi, the drivers/video/ changes will conflict with the drivers/video/ directory reorganization series, which may be merged for 3.15. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
