Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic

[Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>]

On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]

>>>
>>> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing
>>> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver.
>>> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO
>>
>> Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
>> Is that established kernel terminology?
>>
>> I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
>> loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
>> the driver that would not consult this function, right?
> 
> We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be 
> called generic or firmware driver.
> 
> My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation 
> detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc 
> driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test 
> for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of 
> the driver and not even load it.
> 
> How about we invert the test function and use something like
> 
>   bool drm_firmware_drivers_only()
>

That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me.

There was also another bikeshed about where to put the function declaration,
I added to <drm/drm_mode_config.h> but with that name I believe that should
be in <drm/drm_drv.h> instead.

Best regards, -- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat