From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751325AbdFYPHu (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:07:50 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:32797 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750763AbdFYPHs (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:07:48 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:07:39 +0100 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Teddy Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Message-ID: <20170625150739.GA9422@sudip-laptop> References: <1497904378-4808-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20170625124334.GA6942@sudip-laptop> <20170625125451.GB2728@kroah.com> <20170625135429.GA8651@sudip-laptop> <20170625142723.GA11105@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170625142723.GA11105@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:43:34PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > From: Teddy Wang > > > > > > > > > > If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa > > > > > and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to > > > > > effectively work with xorg. > > > > > So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review > > > > comments from you about this one? > > > > > > All of the other complaints about this patch were not sufficient for me > > > to justify ignoring it? Why would I not listen to them? > > > > This patch is doing what all the drm drivers are doing. So you want > > us to do something completely new rather than following the established > > practice of a drm driver? > > I despise cargo-cult programming. You could not answer the "why", so > why would I accept such a patch? Did a quick research into "why". The patch d8801e4df91e ("x86/PCI: Set IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW only for the default VGA device") has started setting IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW in flags for a default VGA device and that is being done only for x86. And so, we will need that #ifdef to check IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW as that needs to be checked only for a x86 and not for other arch. -- Regards Sudip