From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:44:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56D4050B.1000502@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160226135813.GD15454@windriver.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1585 bytes --]
On 26/02/16 15:58, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> A counter point would be that if an old driver has remained non-modular
> for all these years, then clearly there is no demand for adding a new
> modular implementation at this point in time.
True. Then again, I think fbdev drivers are almost always used as
built-in to get the console up and running early. For fbdev I see the
module support mostly as a way to improve the code quality and to
simplify development and testing.
> The main reason is listed as #4 above -- if we keep drivers around that
> reflect a disconnect between Kconfig and code, the same mistake gets
> copied into more and more new drivers as they are created.
Yep, but the same could be said about having drivers without module
support too =).
In any case, I don't accept new fbdev drivers except in special cases,
so fbdev drivers' value as examples is not that much.
> If the argument was to not go in and rewrite core code for legacy
> drivers, I'd agree with that, but that isn't what is happening here.
> In a lot of these type changes, where the only change is to replace
> module_init with device initcall, the object files are identical.
Yes, the patches look simple enough. Ensuring they would work as modules
would be riskier.
> If subsystem maintainers would rather have blanket tristate coversions
> and whatever changes are required to make it compile and modpost, and
> are OK to assume things will just work, then that could be an option...
Nope, I think these are fine. I'll queue them up for 4.6.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
<linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>, <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:44:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56D4050B.1000502@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160226135813.GD15454@windriver.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1585 bytes --]
On 26/02/16 15:58, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> A counter point would be that if an old driver has remained non-modular
> for all these years, then clearly there is no demand for adding a new
> modular implementation at this point in time.
True. Then again, I think fbdev drivers are almost always used as
built-in to get the console up and running early. For fbdev I see the
module support mostly as a way to improve the code quality and to
simplify development and testing.
> The main reason is listed as #4 above -- if we keep drivers around that
> reflect a disconnect between Kconfig and code, the same mistake gets
> copied into more and more new drivers as they are created.
Yep, but the same could be said about having drivers without module
support too =).
In any case, I don't accept new fbdev drivers except in special cases,
so fbdev drivers' value as examples is not that much.
> If the argument was to not go in and rewrite core code for legacy
> drivers, I'd agree with that, but that isn't what is happening here.
> In a lot of these type changes, where the only change is to replace
> module_init with device initcall, the object files are identical.
Yes, the patches look simple enough. Ensuring they would work as modules
would be riskier.
> If subsystem maintainers would rather have blanket tristate coversions
> and whatever changes are required to make it compile and modpost, and
> are OK to assume things will just work, then that could be an option...
Nope, I think these are fine. I'll queue them up for 4.6.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-29 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-22 3:13 [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] drivers/video: make fbdev/sunxvr500.c explicitly non-modular Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` [PATCH 2/3] drivers/video: make fbdev/sunxvr1000.c " Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` [PATCH 3/3] drivers/video: make fbdev/sunxvr2500.c " Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-22 3:13 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-26 10:58 ` [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code Tomi Valkeinen
2016-02-26 10:58 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2016-02-26 13:58 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-26 13:58 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-02-29 8:44 ` Tomi Valkeinen [this message]
2016-02-29 8:44 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2016-02-26 17:21 ` [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc David Miller
2016-02-26 17:21 ` [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code David Miller
2016-02-29 8:51 ` [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbde Tomi Valkeinen
2016-02-29 8:51 ` [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code Tomi Valkeinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56D4050B.1000502@ti.com \
--to=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.