Hi On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/03/14 14:16, David Herrmann wrote: >> Hi Tomi >> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 03/03/14 13:09, David Herrmann wrote: >>> >>>>> What do you think, would it be possible to keep the sysfb stuff in >>>>> arch/x86, and still be able to do the rest of the stuff here? And then >>>>> move the sysfs from arch/x86 to drivers/video later? >>>> >>>> I don't think there's any need for that. Linus does conflict >>>> resolution all day long, so a short hint in Dave's pull-request (plus >>>> an example merge) should be enough. Same is true for -next, I think. >>> >>> True, but, well, the conflict with this one is not a few lines. "git >>> diff |wc -l" gives 2494 lines for the conflict. It's not really complex >>> to resolve that one, though, as it's really about copying all the stuff >>> into its new place. >>> >>> So I'm not sure if that makes Linus think "this is simple one, 30 secs >>> and done" or "who the f*** sends me this crap" ;). Especially for two >>> reasons: >>> >>> - The fb-reogranization is not very critical, and often clean-ups are >>> not worth it (although I think this one is good one, of course). >>> - Conflicting fbdev changes coming from another tree >>> >>>> And this is really just a mechanical thing, nothing hard to do. But of >>>> course, it's your decision. However, keeping the code in x86 is the >>>> wrong thing to do. As discussed with Ingo, the patch that extends >>> >>> Yes, I didn't mean keeping the code in x86 for good, but just for one >>> kernel version to make merging easier. >>> >>>> x86/sysfb is only provided for easier backporting. The followup patch >>>> immediately removes it again and adds proper video/sysfb. I'd dislike >>>> splitting these just to avoid merge conflicts. I can also maintain a >>>> merge-fixup branch in my tree, if anyone wants that. >>> >>> You can have a try at merging. If you think it's trivial, maybe it is >>> and we can just let Linus handle it: >>> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomba/linux.git >>> work/fb-reorder >> >> Ok, I'm fine with delaying this one more merge-window. However, to >> make things easier, could you pick up the two fbdev cleanups? These >> are: >> fbdev: efifb: add dev->remove() callback >> fbdev: vesafb: add dev->remove() callback >> >> They only add ->remove() callbacks which are never triggered currently >> except with my sysfb series. But I'd like to drop both to make the >> series smaller. > > Yes, I can take them if they work fine without the rest of the patches. > > I could also take all the patches up to patch #6 via fbdev tree. Some of > the patches are for arch x86, but they seem to be still about > framebuffers. But maybe that causes conflicts with x86 tree, then =). > > Then again, maybe we should just go forward and let Linus handle the > conflict. I'm planning to send the "normal" fbdev changes and the > fbdev-reorg separately (just in case Linus doesn't like the reorg), and > that already causes conflicts, very similar to what this series causes. > > So in any case Linus has to handle that conflict, or use a resolution > offered by me. So if fbdev changes and this series are merged in > relatively early phase, I can then send the reorg series a bit later and > offer a conflict resolution that solves the conflicts for both series. > > That way this series doesn't get delayed needlessly in the case that > Linus rejects the reorg series. If you can take these two patches, that's fine. They're not strictly needed by the series and I'd be happy to see them upstream. The other sysfb patches should be merged together, so I don't think there's much gain in applying them through fbdev. The DRM tree is usually merged late, anyway, so I'll see whether we will merge simpledrm through drm-next or not. If not, it'll be 3.16 then. If you can get the fbdev merge in early, that should be enough for us to figure it out and provide a conflict-resolution. Btw., do you want the generic sysfb-helper in drivers/video/ or driver/video/fbdev? It's not limited to fbdev, so I'd put it in drivers/video/. Thanks David _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
