Re: [PATCH V2] video: implement a simple framebuffer driver

[Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Monday 29 of April 2013 23:20:43 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Tomasz,
> 
> On Monday 29 April 2013 23:15:13 Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 of April 2013 11:56:31 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Monday 08 April 2013 17:16:37 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Wed,  3 Apr 2013 20:39:43 -0600 Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > > > A simple frame-buffer describes a raw memory region that may be
> > > > > rendered to, with the assumption that the display hardware has
> > > > > already been set up to scan out from that buffer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is useful in cases where a bootloader exists and has set up
> > > > > the
> > > > > display hardware, but a Linux driver doesn't yet exist for the
> > > > > display hardware.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > +config FB_SIMPLE
> > > > > +	bool "Simple framebuffer support"
> > > > > +	depends on (FB = y) && OF
> > > > 
> > > > It's sad that this simple little thing requires Open Firmware. 
> > > > Could
> > > > it be generalised in some way so that the small amount of setup
> > > > info
> > > > could be provided by other means (eg, module_param) or does the
> > > > dependency go deeper than that?
> > > 
> > > I second that request. I like the idea of a simple framebuffer
> > > driver if it helps deprecating fbdev in the long term, but I don't
> > > want it to offer an excuse not to implement a DRM/KMS driver. In
> > > particular adding DT bindings would force us to keep supporting the
> > > ABI for a (too) long time.
> > 
> > Well, there is also at least one legitimate use case for this driver.
> > 
> > I believe there exist embedded devices on which there is no need to
> > dynamically control the framebuffer. It needs one time initialization,
> > usually in bootloader, and then it is used as is, using constant
> > parameters as long as the system is running.
> > 
> > I doubt there is a need for any KMS (or any other control) driver for
> > such devices - dumb framebuffer driver would be everything needed in
> > such case.
> As we want to deprecate the fbdev API we would need to move to KMS at
> some point anyway, even if the device can't be controlled. I don't
> think writting such a KMS driver would be that difficult.

Good point. Stephen, would it be a problem to make this a KMS driver 
instead? Old fbdev API could be emulated on top of it, until it goes out 
of use, couldn't it?

Best regards,
Tomasz