[PATCH v3 01/22] drm: Add GEM backed framebuffer library

[Noralf Trønnes]

Den 16.08.2017 23.08, skrev Laurent Pinchart:
> Hi Noralf,
>
> On Wednesday 16 Aug 2017 23:03:36 Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>> Den 16.08.2017 22.39, skrev Laurent Pinchart:
>>> On Wednesday 16 Aug 2017 21:52:02 Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>>>> Den 16.08.2017 19.24, skrev Eric Anholt:
>>>>> Noralf Trønnes <noralf at tronnes.org> writes:
>>>>>> This library provides helpers for drivers that don't subclass
>>>>>> drm_framebuffer and are backed by drm_gem_object. The code is
>>>>>> taken from drm_fb_cma_helper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf at tronnes.org>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * drm_gem_fb_destroy - Free GEM backed framebuffer
>>>>>> + * @fb: DRM framebuffer
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Frees a GEM backed framebuffer with it's backing buffer(s) and the
>>>>>> structure
>>>>> grammar nit: "its"
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
>>>> Thanks, applied to drm-misc.
>>> The patches were posted on Sunday. If you don't give at least a week to
>>> reviewers, I don't think they will keep bothering. I certainly won't.
>> Hi Laurent,
>>
>> I actually didn't think there was much interest in this patchset since
>> the first version of the patcheset was sent 31/7. Daniel gave me his rb
>> if I fixed the docs a week ago. Instead of applying it directly I sent
>> a new version to give Eric a chance to look at it since he showed
>> interest in an rfc. So when I got his rb, I just applied.
>>
>> All that being said, I do appreciate reviews since that improves the work.
>> I will adapt to waiting a week if that's what's expected.
> There are always exceptions, or at least borderline cases, but I think that
> one week is a reasonable delay in the general case. If you're at v8 and your
> series has been acked by 10 people already it can be a different story. Or if
> you're fixing a security issue that has to get in a late -rc before the final
> kernel is released. Or lots of other cases probably.
>
>> Sorry about the let down.
> It's OK, I know it wasn't on purpose :-) Your reply is definitely appreciated.
>
> Could you post a follow-up patch to fix the few issues I mentioned (at least
> the ones you agree with of course) ?
>

Yes, I'll do that.

I suck at writing documentation, so when I need documentation for say
an argument, I copy it from another function with the same argument.
Not always pretty obviously, so I rely on help from reviewers to ensure
proper english. Daniel has helped me many times to flesh out the docs.

Noralf.