On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:02:44PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 15.04.21 um 11:21 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 09:31:01AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > > > Am 08.04.21 um 10:13 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:29:19AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > > > > > Make sure required hardware clocks are enabled while the firmware > > > > > framebuffer is in use. > > > > > > > > > > The basic code has been taken from the simplefb driver and adapted > > > > > to DRM. Clocks are released automatically via devres helpers. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> > > > > > Tested-by: nerdopolis <bluescreen_avenger@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Even though it's definitely simpler to review, merging the driver first > > > > and then the clocks and regulators will break bisection on the platforms > > > > that rely on them > > > > > > I'd like to keep the patches separate for now, but can squash patches 6 to 8 > > > them into one before pushing them. OK? > > > > Yep, that works for me :) > > > > > > > > > > Another thing worth considering is also that both drivers will probe if > > > > they are enabled (which is pretty likely), which is not great :) > > > > > > > > I guess we should make them mutually exclusive through Kconfig > > > > > > We already have several drivers in fbdev and DRM that handle the same > > > hardware. We don't do this for any other pair, why bother now? > > > > Yeah, but simplefb/simpledrm are going to be enabled pretty much > > everywhere, as opposed to the other drivers that are more specialized. > > Well, OK. But I'd like to give simpledrm preference over simplefb. There > should be an incentive to switch to DRM. Yeah that makes total sense :) Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
