[Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[BALATON Zoltan]

Hello,

I plan to make more changes to sm501 emulation to make it more usable for 
AmigaOS and other Amiga like OSes. This would include first cleaning up of 
current state, then trying to optimise 2D ops and display updates because 
it was found these are currently quite slow. (Especially when using 8bit 
or 16bit screen modes as AmigaOS does where every screen update does pixel 
format conversion with a simple loop in a suboptimal way. Maybe we can use 
more optimal pixman routines for these.)

We have found while merging previous patches that the status of sm501 is 
not clear. It was originally part of SH emulation added for the R2D board 
but now it's also used by PPC sam460ex board (and can be used with mac99 
as well to run MorphOS that does not yet boot on sam460ex). David Gibson, 
the PPC maintainer has indicated that he can't review changes to this 
device and it is not really related to PPC so the practice of merging 
sm501 patches via his PPC tree is not preferred.

So before sending more patches I'd like to clear who can review and merge 
patches for sm501 in the future and what is the maintainership of this 
device?

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

Re: [Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2269 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:29:56AM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I plan to make more changes to sm501 emulation to make it more usable for
> AmigaOS and other Amiga like OSes. This would include first cleaning up of
> current state, then trying to optimise 2D ops and display updates because it
> was found these are currently quite slow. (Especially when using 8bit or
> 16bit screen modes as AmigaOS does where every screen update does pixel
> format conversion with a simple loop in a suboptimal way. Maybe we can use
> more optimal pixman routines for these.)
> 
> We have found while merging previous patches that the status of sm501 is not
> clear. It was originally part of SH emulation added for the R2D board but
> now it's also used by PPC sam460ex board (and can be used with mac99 as well
> to run MorphOS that does not yet boot on sam460ex). David Gibson, the PPC
> maintainer has indicated that he can't review changes to this device and it
> is not really related to PPC so the practice of merging sm501 patches via
> his PPC tree is not preferred.
> 
> So before sending more patches I'd like to clear who can review and merge
> patches for sm501 in the future and what is the maintainership of this
> device?

The unfortunate answer is that there isn't any great choice: that's
basically what having no maintainer means.

I suspect Gerd is the most qualified to review patches to this
technically, but even then that's only by general familiarity with
display devices.

At Peter's request, I'm willing to take sm501 patches through the ppc
tree.  Since I can't review the patches in depth, I'd be pretty much
taking anything you send unless there's something obviously bogus.

.. which would make you de facto sub-maintainer of sm501.  Given
which, I encourage you again to become *actual* maintainer; there
really is no-one better qualified at this point.  I realize that you
don't want to make a big ongoing job of thise, but AFAIK that's
exactly what the "Odd Fixes" maintainership status exists for.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[BALATON Zoltan]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:29:56AM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>> So before sending more patches I'd like to clear who can review and merge
>> patches for sm501 in the future and what is the maintainership of this
>> device?
>
> The unfortunate answer is that there isn't any great choice: that's
> basically what having no maintainer means.
>
> I suspect Gerd is the most qualified to review patches to this
> technically, but even then that's only by general familiarity with
> display devices.
>
> At Peter's request, I'm willing to take sm501 patches through the ppc
> tree.  Since I can't review the patches in depth, I'd be pretty much
> taking anything you send unless there's something obviously bogus.
>
> .. which would make you de facto sub-maintainer of sm501.  Given
> which, I encourage you again to become *actual* maintainer; there
> really is no-one better qualified at this point.  I realize that you
> don't want to make a big ongoing job of thise, but AFAIK that's
> exactly what the "Odd Fixes" maintainership status exists for.

There's already a section for sam460ex in MAINTAINERS where I've claimed 
some devices that I've added and used by this machine. I did not take 
sm501 because it was part of SH4 R2D but surprisingly it's not listed 
there either and the maintainer listed there remained silent so far so it 
seems that is not maintained any more.

I could list sm501 in the sam460ex section thus formally taking 
sub-maintainership but this would only go as far that I'll get cc-d on 
changes and try to review them. I still can't (and don't want to) maintain 
my own tree and send pull requests directly so I'd need someone's help 
with that who can take my patches and merge them via their tree. If it's 
OK to continue to use the PPC tree for that I'm fine with that if David 
agrees (which I think he did above).

So is it OK to add sm501 to sam460ex section so I claim responsibility for 
changes and will continue sending patches cc-ing David (and maybe Gerd to 
help spotting problems) then David could take these via the PPC tree?

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

Re: [Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[Peter Maydell]

On 16 July 2018 at 21:26, BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:
> I could list sm501 in the sam460ex section thus formally taking
> sub-maintainership but this would only go as far that I'll get cc-d on
> changes and try to review them. I still can't (and don't want to) maintain
> my own tree and send pull requests directly so I'd need someone's help with
> that who can take my patches and merge them via their tree. If it's OK to
> continue to use the PPC tree for that I'm fine with that if David agrees
> (which I think he did above).
>
> So is it OK to add sm501 to sam460ex section so I claim responsibility for
> changes and will continue sending patches cc-ing David (and maybe Gerd to
> help spotting problems) then David could take these via the PPC tree?

I think that makes sense. sh4 is pretty dead and if sm501's major
active user is the sam460ex then listing it there seems reasonable.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1530 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:43:05PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 July 2018 at 21:26, BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:
> > I could list sm501 in the sam460ex section thus formally taking
> > sub-maintainership but this would only go as far that I'll get cc-d on
> > changes and try to review them. I still can't (and don't want to) maintain
> > my own tree and send pull requests directly so I'd need someone's help with
> > that who can take my patches and merge them via their tree. If it's OK to
> > continue to use the PPC tree for that I'm fine with that if David agrees
> > (which I think he did above).
> >
> > So is it OK to add sm501 to sam460ex section so I claim responsibility for
> > changes and will continue sending patches cc-ing David (and maybe Gerd to
> > help spotting problems) then David could take these via the PPC tree?
> 
> I think that makes sense. sh4 is pretty dead and if sm501's major
> active user is the sam460ex then listing it there seems reasonable.

Sounds good to me.

Zoltan, can you send a patch adding sm501 to the sam460ex section of
the MAINTAINERS file.  That will make you the right point of contact
for it.

On the understanding that it's just about tree logistics, rather than
review, I'll be happy to take sm501 patches from you through my tree.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] hw/display/sm501* status

[Sebastian Bauer]

Hi,

Am 2018-07-18 04:30, schrieb David Gibson:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:43:05PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 16 July 2018 at 21:26, BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:
>> > I could list sm501 in the sam460ex section thus formally taking
>> > sub-maintainership but this would only go as far that I'll get cc-d on
>> > changes and try to review them. I still can't (and don't want to) maintain
>> > my own tree and send pull requests directly so I'd need someone's help with
>> > that who can take my patches and merge them via their tree. If it's OK to
>> > continue to use the PPC tree for that I'm fine with that if David agrees
>> > (which I think he did above).
>> >
>> > So is it OK to add sm501 to sam460ex section so I claim responsibility for
>> > changes and will continue sending patches cc-ing David (and maybe Gerd to
>> > help spotting problems) then David could take these via the PPC tree?
>> 
>> I think that makes sense. sh4 is pretty dead and if sm501's major
>> active user is the sam460ex then listing it there seems reasonable.
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> Zoltan, can you send a patch adding sm501 to the sam460ex section of
> the MAINTAINERS file.  That will make you the right point of contact
> for it.
> 
> On the understanding that it's just about tree logistics, rather than
> review, I'll be happy to take sm501 patches from you through my tree.

Zoltan, if you like you can also add me as a possible reviewer for 
anything that is Sam460ex-related.

Bye
Sebastian