[PATCH 02/13] fbdev: add remove_conflicting_pci_framebuffers()

[Sudip Mukherjee]

Hi Daniel,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:56:34AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:30:30PM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:32:38PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:22:17AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 08:52:19PM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:27:59AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:53:31PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > > > > > Almost all drivers using remove_conflicting_framebuffers() wrap it with
> > > > > > > the same code. Extract common part from PCI drivers into separate
> > > > > > > remove_conflicting_pci_framebuffers().
> > > > > > > 

<snip>

> > > > 
> > > > Greg?
> > > 
> > > Yes, if no one is working to get it out of staging, that means no one
> > > cares about it, and it needs to be removed from the tree.
> > 
> > Agreed. I was not working on getting it out of staging as there is no
> > place for it to go.
> > But, Teddy Wang told me that they have a working drm driver for it, but
> > it is not atomic like Daniel was asking for. If it is ok, then I can send
> > in a patch to remove the existing sm750 from staging and add the new sm750
> > drm driver to staging. And after it is ready, we can go ahead with moving
> > it out of staging to drm.
> 
> Please keep the todo item that it needs to be converted to atomic. And
> tbh, it's probably faster if you just submit it to dri-devel, assuming you
> have time to work on it. For small drivers we tend to be fairly quick in
> getting them into good enough shape.

I have received the driver from Teddy and pushed it to
https://github.com/sudipm-mukherjee/parport/tree/drm_smi for your first
look into it. It is not even building with next-20171130 and has lots of
build warnings. I will have to do a lot of work on it before I can even
submit it to dri-devel.

Time will be the problem, as this is not part of my day job.

> 
> Staging is also a major pain for drm subsystem refactorings, I really,
> really, really prefer we don't add more than the vbox pain we have
> already.

I am hoping that after seeing it, you will agree to have it in staging. :)

--
Regards
Sudip