Re: [PATCH 30/30] fbdev: Make support for userspace interfaces configurable

From: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: daniel.thompson@linaro.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, jingoohan1@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de,
	lee@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	sam@ravnborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/30] fbdev: Make support for userspace interfaces configurable
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:09:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <77252bc9-e08e-fcee-d140-2b78ab768b42@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <873532eurg.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4991 bytes --]

Hi Geert and Javier

Am 08.06.23 um 01:07 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> 
> Hello Geert and Thomas,
> 
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 5:15 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 07.06.23 um 10:48 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 4:48 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -57,6 +57,15 @@ config FIRMWARE_EDID
>>>>>             combination with certain motherboards and monitors are known to
>>>>>             suffer from this problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> +config FB_DEVICE
>>>>> +        bool "Provide legacy /dev/fb* device"
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps "default y if !DRM", although that does not help for a
>>>> mixed drm/fbdev kernel build?
>>>
>>> We could simply set it to "default y".  But OTOH is it worth making it a
>>> default? Distributions will set it to the value they need/want. The very
>>> few people that build their own kernels to get certain fbdev drivers
>>> will certainly be able to enable the option by hand as well.
>>
>> Defaulting to "n" (the default) means causing regressions when these
>> few people use an existing defconfig.
>>
> 
> Having "dfault y if !DRM" makes sense to me. I guess is a corner case but
> at least it won't silently be disabled for users that only want fbdev as
> Geert mentioned.

IMHO the rational behind such conditionals are mostly what "we make up 
here in the discussion", but not something based on real-world feedback. 
So I'd strongly prefer a clear n or y setting here.

> 
> I wouldn't call it a regression though, because AFAIK the Kconfig options
> are not a stable API ?

IIRC in the past there have been concerns about changing Kconfig 
defaults. If we go with "default n", we'd apparently do something similar.

> 
>>>> Or reserve "FB" for real fbdev drivers, and introduce a new FB_CORE,
>>>> to be selected by both FB and DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION?
>>>> Then FB_DEVICE can depend on FB_CORE, and default to y if FB.
> 
> Funny that you mention because it's exactly what I attempted in the past:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210827100531.1578604-1-javierm@redhat.com/T/#u
> 
>>>
>>> That wouldn't work. In Tumbleweed, we still have efifb and vesafb
>>> enabled under certain conditions; merely for the kernel console. We'd
>>> have to enable CONFIG_FB, which would bring back the device.
>>
>> "Default y" does not mean that you cannot disable FB_DEVICE, so
>> you are not forced to bring back the device?
>>
> 
> I think we can have both to make the kernel more configurable:
> 
> 1) Allow to only disable fbdev user-space APIs (/dev/fb?, /proc/fb, etc),
>     which is what the series is doing with the new FB_DEVICE config symbol.
> 
> 2) Allow to disable all "native" fbdev drivers and only keep the DRM fbdev
>     emulation layer. That's what my series attempted to do with the FB_CORE
>     Kconfig symbol.
> 
> I believe that there are use cases for both, for example as Thomas' said
> many distros are disabling all the fbdev drivers and their user-space only
> requires DRM/KMS, so makes sense to not expose any fbdev uAPI at all.
> 
> But may be that other users want the opposite, they have an old user-space
> that requires fbdev, but is running on newer hardware that only have a DRM
> driver. So they will want DRM fbdev emulation but none fbdev driver at all.
> 
> That's why I think that FB_DEVICE and FB_CORE are complementary and we can
> support any combination of the two, if you agree there are uses for either.

I still don't understand the value of such an extra compile-time option? 
  Either you have fbdev userspace, then you want the device; or you 
don't then it's better to disable it entirely. I don't see much of a 
difference between DRM and fbdev drivers here.

I'd also question the argument that there's even fbdev userspace out 
there. It was never popular in it's heyday and definitely hasn't 
improved since then. Even the 3 people who still ask for fbdev support 
here only seem to care about the performance of the framebuffer console, 
but never about userspace.

So I'd like to propose a different solution: on top of the current 
patchset, let's make an fbdev module option that enables the device. If 
CONFIG_FB_DEVICE has been enabled, the option would switch the 
functionality on and off. A Kconfig option would set the default.  With 
such a setup, distributions can disable the fbdev device by default. 
And the few users with the odd system that has fbdev userspace can still 
enable the fbdev device at boot time.

Best regards
Thomas

> 

-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]