Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 14:58:59 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] drm: Allow simpledrm to setup its emulated FB as
 firmware provided
Message-ID: <YnPKE+6DE12IsOj4@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
References: <20220503071540.471667-1-javierm@redhat.com>
 <20220503071540.471667-4-javierm@redhat.com>
 <YnJcaaDcIsJKhSwQ@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <bfb03d40-a023-12a9-9554-1b6e6c474134@redhat.com>
 <YnO+8hZ0ozPaZUEj@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <47d3a7f6-24f9-7d54-48bf-09ab9e40e2de@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47d3a7f6-24f9-7d54-48bf-09ab9e40e2de@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 02:45:27PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
> 
> On 5/5/22 14:11, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >>
> >> And while I agree with you that these midlayer flags are horrible, that is
> >> what any other fbdev that makes use of a firmware-provided framebuffer set,
> >> so simpledrm emulated fbdev shouldn't be the exception IMO.
> > 
> > So we discussed this a pile more on irc, and at least my take is that
> > people who run simpledrm but want to combine that with fbdev drivers and
> > expect it to all work nicely we can probably ignore. At least until all
> > this sysfb stuff is nicely unified, and at that point we shouldn't need
> > special flags anymore.
> 
> I'm OK with this take and happy to just drop this patch-set then. My worry
> was just that someone could complain that we broke their uncommon setup [0].
> 
> [0]: https://xkcd.com/1172/.

Since you have to explicitly enable simpledrm and that combo never
worked, we did not actually break anything.

Me, who has over a decade experience legalesing around the "no regression"
rule :-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch