On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> >>> So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or >>> rather at >>> the elephant in the room. What about non-kms drivers. We still have the >>> vesa >>> driver around as most prominent example, and this is useful for some >>> oddball >>> cards and for cards which are too new. >> >> >> -mga is probably also still relevant in some small number of cases. > > > Don't we've a kms driver for those? Or you mean for mga cards not supported > by > the kms driver? > > >> We can probably kill -cirrus. That would leave -openchrome, which I think >> is probably only really relevant for OLPC? What's the situation with the >> binary nvidia and amd drivers? > > > Oh, I completely did not think about the binary drivers yet. Ugh. AFAIK > those > are not compatible with kms, so the helper for other ums drivers would just > do > the right thing there since there would be no kms capable card to be found > in /dev. > > >>> I would like to not break the vesa driver, while still killing the suid >>> bit on >>> the X server. >> >> >> It's probably worth considering whether porting uvesafb to kms would be >> worthwhile, and then just using -modesetting. > > > Yes that is something I was thinking about too, that would be an interesting > approach, > it would make it somewhat harder for people to use binary drivers, but not > impossible. > Does uvesafb actually work? I submitted a patch to the uvesafb kernel driver a few months back, and not only is the upstream link [1][2] to the v86d helper dead, but no one on the dri-devel list answered my request to see if anyone had a copy. Fedora does not appear to package a copy (at least yum whatprovides '*/v86d' doesn't come up with anything). This means that I got a patch into upstream drm and that it's quite possible that no one (or maybe a grand total of one person) has ever tested. Or do you mean the older pre-uvesafb driver? [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb [2] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/fb/uvesafb.txt > And then we could simply forget about supporting ums at all I guess. > > Regards, > > Hans > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
