From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marek.vasut@gmail.com (Marek Vasut) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 01:29:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] drm: mxsfb: Change driver.name to mxsfb-drm In-Reply-To: References: <47ea7572011735b68a8a70f0e11bdf00cb2fd86a.1529091248.git.leonard.crestez@nxp.com> <07be6d9a85b6be655fc2b084be81d8bf9715b57a.camel@nxp.com> <638457fd-85da-8fec-d146-517c43f71813@denx.de> Message-ID: <22e2aecc-3735-8ad6-3f36-75ae2b8f2498@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/16/2018 12:22 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> Having two drivers in the kernel with different set of bugs is always bad. > > Sure, but breaking dtb's is also bad. You picked only the first part of my argument, the less important one ;-) > Can the mxsfb driver be modified to handle the old style bindings? Maybe, but do we care ? Cfr my comment about the amount of users who will be affected by this. > The IPU drm driver is capable of handling both the old style where the > display timing is passed in dts and the new drm style. > > For example: > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabresd.dtsi uses the drm style binding > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi uses the old style of passing > the display timings in dts > > Both formats are accepted by the ipu drm driver. > > Can't mxsfb drm driver support both? Then we don't need to worry about > breaking dtb's and could safely remove the mxs fbdev driver. This might be a way forward, but again, does it justify the effort ? We will be adding compatibility code which we will have to maintain for maybe a handful of users I think. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut