[Openchrome-devel] xf86-video-openchrome: src/via_display.c src/via_driver.c src/via_driver.h src/via_lvds.c src/via_outputs.c

[Xavier Bachelot]

Hi Kevin,

On 05/04/2016 05:56, Kevin Brace wrote:
> Hi Xavier,
> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 1:31 AM From: "Xavier Bachelot"
>> <xavier at bachelot.org> To: openchrome-devel at lists.freedesktop.org,
>> "Kevin Brace" <kevinbrace at gmx.com> Subject: Re: [Openchrome-devel]
>> xf86-video-openchrome: src/via_display.c src/via_driver.c
>> src/via_driver.h src/via_lvds.c src/via_outputs.c
>> 
>> Hi Kevin,
>> 
>> On 18/03/2016 13:20, Kevin Brace wrote:
>>> src/via_display.c |   35 +-- src/via_driver.c  |   40 --- 
>>> src/via_driver.h  |    1 src/via_lvds.c    |  613
>>> +++++++----------------------------------------------- 
>>> src/via_outputs.c |  128 ----------- 5 files changed, 98
>>> insertions(+), 719 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> New commits: commit b48fb4176c96b04f5de8b2ee20f55af404ba0db7 
>>> Author: Kevin Brace <kevinbrace at gmx.com> Date:   Fri Mar 18
>>> 05:11:56 2016 -0700
>>> 
>>> Removal of legacy user mode setting
>>> 
>>> OpenChrome has had multiple ways to configure the display mode.
>>> This added unnecessary code maintenance burden on the developers.
>>> Hence, the legacy user mode setting is now discontinued.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brace <kevinbrace at gmx.com>
>>> 
>> 
>> I believe this breaks my CLE266 + VGA. No time to really
>> investigate the issue yet, and I reverted to the commit just before
>> this one mostly out of a guess.
>> 
>> I'll properly bisect and post logs and registers dumps for both the
>>  working and non-working case shortly.
>> 
>> Regards, Xavier
>> 
> 
> If you have a specific situation of OpenChrome Version 0.4.0 not
> working, please file a bug report with http://bugs.freedesktop.org. I
> typically ask everyone seeking help to do this.
Will do. I just sent a note as soon as I observed the regression on my
setup and I know this is definitely not enough to debug the issue.
Meanwhile, I've confirmed this is the faulty commit.
Actually, I think I already stumbled on this very bug long time ago when
James rewrote some part of the code and that's why CLE266 was reverted
to legacy mode setting to avoid introducing a regression. Not sure why
we did not fully debug this, but there was so many moving parts at the
moment, we probably ran out of time then forgot about it to concentrate
on KMS.
I'm probably going to ship openchrome 0.4.0 on Fedora with a patch to
revert the legacy mode setting removal. Indeed, this is only a temporary
workaround, I don't want to maintain out of tree patches unless
absolutely necessary and will remove it asap.

> Just to be very clear, I will not fix any bugs that appear in
> versions older than Version 0.4.0, and certainly, I will not revive
> VBE and legacy mode setting (and "known device table"). I did make a
> few commits that fixed a problem I observed with CLE266 (EPIA-M) and
> VX800 (EPIA-M830) chipsets before the new release.
I don't particularly care about VBE, nor legacy mode setting. Less code,
less bug :-)
On the other hand, the known devices table might be a bit more
problematic for older laptops. It was used in the first place to allow
enabling otherwise undetectable LVDS panel. That being said, I
completely agree this is/was a maintenance burden, I've been trying to
keep it up to date for years, and I'm more than happy to see it go.
Hopefully the code you added is enough to handle such cases. This is
definitely something that people with the hardware need to test, and
that's not my case.

> Please note that I did test the code with 2 CLE266 chipset mainboards
> (EPIA-CL and EPIA-M). Both of them worked without issues, although
> both of them still suffer from a standby mode resume bug even today
> (This is disclosed in the newly rewritten README file that came with
> the new release.). I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for testing.
One cannot test every possible hardware and software setup, and bugs
will fall through the cracks. This did happen numerous time already and
will happen again :-)

> Although I probably should not get personal, I will need to let you
> know that I sent you 4 e-mails between October 2015 to December 2015
> regarding OpenChrome. It appears that you choose to ignore all of
> them. You are under no obligation to explain why you choose to do
> this to me, but personally, I think it is very unprofessional to
> completely ignore me this way. While I sent several e-mails to James
> Simmons around the same time, at least he has completely disappeared
> since January 2015 or so.
> 
Sorry about that, but please note I did not ignore you, I was unable to
answer and I did already explain why in a private mail to you and a
couple other people involved or looking to get involved with openchrome
at the very beginning of the year, and I'm not going to repeat on a
public mailing list. I'm sorry if you feel offended, that was
definitively not the intention.
On a related note, don't take it personal either, but I sometime feel
you're a bit unfair and unnecessarily rude to the previous developers
and it would be beneficial to everyone to not judge too quickly.
Anyway, no need for drama on any side, thanks for doing the much needed
work and inflating some life again into openchrome, this is much
appreciated.

Regards,
Xavier