Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <47d3a7f6-24f9-7d54-48bf-09ab9e40e2de@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 14:45:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] drm: Allow simpledrm to setup its emulated FB as
 firmware provided
Content-Language: en-US
To:     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>
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YnO+8hZ0ozPaZUEj@phenom.ffwll.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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/.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat