On 1/26/22 12:18, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 1/26/22 11:59, Helge Deller wrote: >> On 1/26/22 11:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > [snip] > >>> P.S. For the record, I will personally NAK any attempts to remove that >>> driver from the kernel. And this is another point why it's better not >>> to be under the staging. >> >> I agree. Same as for me to NAK the disabling of fbcon's acceleration >> features or even attempting to remove fbdev altogether (unless all >> relevant drivers are ported to DRM). >> > > But that will never happen if we keep moving the goal post. > > At some point new fbdev drivers should not be added anymore, otherwise > the number of existing drivers that need conversion will keep growing. Good point, and yes you are right! I think the rule should be something like: New graphics devices (e.g. max. 3 years old from now) usually are capable to be ported to DRM. For those graphics cards we should put a hard stop and not include them as new driver into the fbdev framework. Inclusion for those will only happen as DRM driver. In the same manner there are old graphic cards or very specific devices (e.g. more than 3 years old or only used in niche-use cases) which have limitations and thus can't easily be ported to DRM. For those it's still acceptable to include them as legacy fbdev driver, because the work needed in DRM to support such cards or to be able that they run fast enough with DRM just doesn't pay off the efforts which are needed to keep them as DRM driver. Would that be acceptable? Helge
