From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 02/11] drm/fb-helper: Set FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE flag for DRIVER_FIRMWARE fb
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:50:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8671b156-af04-c728-d7bb-1019badbd13a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <82dc11b4-d8da-e9e9-8181-5695fbd806de@suse.de>
On 4/29/22 12:20, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi Javier
[snip]
>>
>>> We can do this with DRIVER_FIRMWARE. Alternatively, I'd suggest to we
>>> could also used the existing final parameter of
>>> drm_fbdev_generic_setup() to pass a flag that designates a firmware device.
>>>
>>
>> By existing final parameter you mean @preferred_bpp ? That doesn't seem
>> correct. I also like that by using DRIVER_FIRMWARE it is completely data
>> driven and transparent to the DRM driver.
>
> DRIVER_FIRMWARE is an indirection and only used here. (Just like
> FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE is a bad interface for marking framebuffers that
> can be unplugged.) If a driver supports hot-unplugging, it should simply
> register itself with aperture helpers, regardless of whether it's a
> firmware framebuffer or not.
>
That's fair, and if in practice will only be used by one driver (simpledrm)
then that would also allow us to drop patches 1 and 2 from this series.
IOW, we wouldn't really need a DRIVER_FIRMWARE capability flag.
> Of preferred_bpp, we really only use the lowest byte. All other bits are
> up for grabbing. The argument is a workaround for handling
> mode_config.prefered_depth correctly.
>
Yeah, but I didn't want to abuse that argument or package data in an int.
> Eventually, preferred_depth should be replaced by something like
> 'preferred_format', which will hold the driver's preferred format in
> 4CC. We won't need preferred_bpp then. So we could turn preferred_bpp
> into a flags argument.
>
That's a good point, maybe we could start from there and do this cleanup
as a preparatory change of this series ? Then the patches would only be
1) renaming preferred_bpp (that would be unused at this point) to flags
and 2) make simpledrm to set FBDEV_FIRMWARE flag or something like that.
Another option is to add a third flags param to drm_fbdev_generic_setup()
and make all drivers to set 0 besides simpledrm. That way marking the fb
as FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE won't be blocked by the preferred_depth cleanup.
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-29 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-29 8:42 [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] Fix some race between sysfb device registration and drivers probe Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 01/11] drm: Add a capability flag for simple framebuffer drivers Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 02/11] drm/fb-helper: Set FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE flag for DRIVER_FIRMWARE fb Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 9:14 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-29 9:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 10:20 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-29 10:50 ` Javier Martinez Canillas [this message]
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 03/11] drm/simpledrm: Set the DRM_FIRMWARE capability Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 04/11] firmware: sysfb: Make sysfb_create_simplefb() return a pdev pointer Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 05/11] firmware: sysfb: Add helpers to unregister a pdev and disable registration Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 06/11] fbdev: Restart conflicting fb removal loop when unregistering devices Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 07/11] fbdev: Make sysfb to unregister its own registered devices Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 08/11] fbdev: Fix race between sysfb and framebuffer devices registration Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 09/11] drm: Fix race between sysfb and DRM " Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 10/11] Revert "fbdev: Prevent probing generic drivers if a FB is already registered" Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 8:42 ` [RFC PATCH v4 11/11] fbdev: Make registered_fb[] private to fbmem.c Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-29 15:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8671b156-af04-c728-d7bb-1019badbd13a@redhat.com \
--to=javierm@redhat.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®