On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:38:09PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > On 1/26/22 12:24, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:18 PM Javier Martinez Canillas > > <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 1/26/22 11:59, Helge Deller wrote: > >>> On 1/26/22 11:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > >>>> 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. > > > > And that point was about 5 years ago, and has been discussed at some > > plumbers meanwhile, resulting in the staging TODO patches to make > > these drm drivers to destage them. > > > > Fixing bugs in fbdev is all fine, reopening it for merging new drivers is not. > > We are on the same page! > I'm not at all proposing to include new drivers for (relatively) new > hardware into fbdev, which is capable to be written as DRM driver. Agree. The point here is neither in opening it for new comers nor for expanding, the drivers in question are all in the kernel in different folder that is not suitable for them, but I gave up. I see that nobody wants maintainers to be appearing for the old _working_ code, as it was shown already by the DVB case few month ago. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
