From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPC driver for Intel Mobile Internet Device (MID) platforms Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20100426162202.GA11755@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100423143037.6744.87450.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20100426150934.GA9422@srcf.ucam.org> <20100426155534.6dcaca0c@linux.intel.com> <20100426154300.GA10782@srcf.ucam.org> <20100426163958.2b5f16b7@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:49553 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751914Ab0DZQWJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:22:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100426163958.2b5f16b7@linux.intel.com> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alan Cox Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sreedhara.ds@intel.com, mingo@elte.hu On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:39:58PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > The case I'm worried about is where the graphics driver never gets > > into a mergable state and we end up with a pile of mainline code that > > can't sanely run on the hardware. As long as the plan is to get it to > > avoid duplicating the entire Intel modesetting code and including its > > own TTM then that seems fair enough, but Intel's track record on this > > side of things hasn't been great. > > I don't track the public DRM lists but the last I saw on that on the > archives was Keith Packard blocking patches to enable such a merge. > You'd have to ask him about it. On the acceleration side mrst/psb > graphics are not i9xx style. I'm really not terribly comfortable merging enabling code for an architecture if there's no clear plan for merging critical parts of that architecture. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org