From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941230AbcLVUgS (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:36:18 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:36064 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbcLVUgQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:36:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161123110529.289a1c7f@free-electrons.com> References: <1479888193-23908-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <20161123085234.GB3122@kroah.com> <230111fb-498e-11ef-b452-157a36d7f021@ti.com> <20161123110529.289a1c7f@free-electrons.com> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 22:36:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] staging: remove fbdev drivers To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: Tomi Valkeinen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Noralf_Tr=C3=B8nnes?= , Sudip Mukherjee , Teddy Wang , Arnaud Patard , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:12:32 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> Or do you mean that we should keep the drivers in staging until there's >> a matching DRM driver, but drop any plans to move the drivers from >> staging to drivers/video/? If so, I'm fine with that. This is an RFC, >> mostly to raise some discussion and push people to actually write those >> DRM drivers =). > > The very reason why I submitted those drivers for staging is because > lots and lots of people were using out of tree kernel modules for these > drivers, which was really a pain. > > If you now remove those drivers from staging, then those folks will be > back in the situation they originally were, using annoying out of tree > modules. > > I'm all for removing fbtft drivers progressively as a matching > DRM-based driver is available for the same hardware. However, if there > is no DRM-based support for a given piece of hardware supported by > fbtft, I'd prefer if we kept the fbtft driver for this hardware. Too many people are playing with big things, I vote +1 to *leave* fbtft for people who prefer small on big. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko