lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic
From
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-12 12:20    [W:0.199 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site