On Monday, 23 April 2018 23:09:55 EEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > On Monday, 23 April 2018 17:22:27 EEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:56:53 +0200 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz escreveu: > > > > On Monday, April 23, 2018 02:47:28 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > >> On Friday, April 20, 2018 01:42:51 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > >>> Add stubs for omapfb_dss.h, in the case it is included by > > > >>> some driver when CONFIG_FB_OMAP2 is not defined, with can > > > >>> happen on ARM when DRM_OMAP is not 'n'. > > > >>> > > > >>> That allows building such driver(s) with COMPILE_TEST. > > > >>> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > >> This patch should be dropped (together with patch #6/7) as it was > > > >> superseded by a better solution suggested by Laurent: > > > >> > > > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10325193/ > > > >> > > > >> ACK-ed by Tomi: > > > >> > > > >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg171918.html > > > >> > > > >> and already merged by you (commit 7378f1149884 "media: omap2: > > > >> omapfb: allow building it with COMPILE_TEST").. > > > > > > > > Hmm, I see now while this patch is still included: > > > > > > > > menuconfig FB_OMAP2 > > > > > > > > tristate "OMAP2+ frame buffer support" > > > > depends on FB > > > > depends on DRM_OMAP = n > > > > > > > > Ideally we should be able to build both drivers in the same kernel > > > > (especially as modules). > > > > > > > > I was hoping that it could be fixed easily but then I discovered > > > > the root source of the problem: > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/display.o: In function > > > > `omapdss_unregister_display': display.c:(.text+0x2c): multiple > > > > definition > > > > of `omapdss_unregister_display' > > > > drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/dss/display.o:display.c:(.text+0x198) > > > > : > > > > first defined here ... > > > > > > Yes, and declared on two different places: > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/omapdss.h:void > > > omapdss_unregister_display(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev); > > > include/video/omapfb_dss.h:void > > > omapdss_unregister_display(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev); > > > > > > one alternative would be to give different names to it, and a common > > > header for both. > > > > > > At such header, it could be doing something like: > > > > > > static inline void omapdss_unregister_display(struct omap_dss_device > > > *dssdev) { > > > #if enabled(CONFIG_DRM_OMAP) > > > > > > omapdss_unregister_display_drm(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev); > > > > > > #else > > > > > > omapdss_unregister_display_fb(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev); > > > > > > ##endif > > > } > > > > > > Yet, after a very quick check, it seems that nowadays only the > > > media omap driver uses the symbols at FB_OMAP: > > > > > > $ git grep omapfb_dss.h > > > drivers/media/platform/omap/omap_vout.c:#include <video/omapfb_dss.h> > > > drivers/media/platform/omap/omap_voutdef.h:#include <video/omapfb_dss.h> > > > drivers/media/platform/omap/omap_voutlib.c:#include <video/omapfb_dss.h> > > > > > > So, perhaps just renaming the common symbols and changing FB_OMAP2 to: > > > menuconfig FB_OMAP2 > > > > > > tristate "OMAP2+ frame buffer support" > > > depends on FB > > > depends on (DRM_OMAP = n) || COMPILE_TEST > > > > > > would be enough to allow to build both on ARM. > > > > I don't think it's worth it renaming the common symbols. They will change > > over time as omapdrm is under heavy rework, and it's painful enough > > without having to handle cross-tree changes. > > It could just rename the namespace-conflicting FB_OMAP2 functions, > keeping the DRM ones as-is. > > > Let's just live with the fact that both drivers > > can't be compiled at the same time, given that omapfb is deprecated. > > IMO, a driver that it is deprecated, being in a state where it > conflicts with a non-deprecated driver that is under heavy rework > is a very good candidate to go to drivers/staging or even to /dev/null. It's on its way, but slowly as we need to take userspace into account. Tomi should have more insight on a possible schedule for removal of omapfb. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
