MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACvgo50REvRxN2_qdw=2NeTTSgjpA+9c8OZgPE0q19meH6ArKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1458552518-25527-1-git-send-email-ykk@rock-chips.com>
	<1571169.Hy8an0n7lM@diego>
	<CACvgo516ewfwGCpV=noX+re1x8t3Sp1t39Sha+A2-tQ5YsoihA@mail.gmail.com>
	<17189219.y56YqHz6yR@diego>
	<CACvgo50REvRxN2_qdw=2NeTTSgjpA+9c8OZgPE0q19meH6ArKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:03:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CACvgo53rYAW4H0SJnz8-7QtfRHmWWUh+7L7DiUbjBJ-hPBMHug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Add Rockchip RGA support
From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Mark Yao <mark.yao@rock-chips.com>,
        Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-rockchip <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
        LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1831
Lines: 40

On 29 March 2016 at 14:13, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 March 2016 at 23:13, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
>> I have the feeling we're going quite a bit off-topic right now :-) .
>> The binary-driver-crazyness, hasn't really anything to do with Yakir's support
>> for the RGA (which is about raster-graphics-acceleration, so 2d stuff).
>>
>> And me mentioning the armsoc-ddx was merely a means to allow some sort of
>> different userspace user, as requested in your original mail ;-) .
>>
> Seems like I forgot to state the obvious - for all the reasons
> mentioned, the armsoc ddx seems like a bad example.
>
>> Maybe you know a better use-case on where to demonstrate the viability of the
>> userspace API for it as originally requested.
> I'm afraid that my RockChip-foo is extremely limited. Perhaps the
> actual user of these should be mentioned ? xf86-video-rockhip (is
> there one ?) or any other effort/project that lacks some (all?) of the
> criticism listed.
>
> (Sort of) the bottom line - either reuse the existing interfaces or
> provide an approved, full blown userspace (libdrm demos/programs do
> not count) that uses the new interfaces.
>
> I haven't made these rules, just a fool^Wguy that repeats them so that
> people don't abuse them much. If in doubt check with Dave and Daniel V
> - they had enough repeating these.
>
I can see how my earlier response may have been come
across/interpreted as aggressive and/or demanding. Apologies anyone
got upset/annoyed.

Let me try in another light - if you guys are willing to have
xf86-video-rockchip or keep track of/co-maintain armsoc, pretty much
everyone will be over the moon. Personally I'd opt for the former,
taking the modesetting (the one in the xserver tree) as a base - it
has all the cool new bits ;-)

Regards,
Emil