Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] fbtft: Unorphan the driver for maintenance

From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	Carlis <zhangxuezhi1@yulong.com>,
	Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] fbtft: Unorphan the driver for maintenance
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 10:18:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220127091820.5ktfbovvw5bnef2e@houat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YfFM+6pvJLmtY0Zg@smile.fi.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2215 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 03:30:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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@redhat.com> 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.

I mean, the main reason fbtft was in staging all this time has never
been about fbdev. It was about the device tree bindings that have never
been documented, reviewed and agreed upon. And given its bindings, we're
very far from it.

That's what Noralf has been mostly working on all this time, and yeah,
it takes time but we're getting there.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]