From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylwester Nawrocki Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:05:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/2] arm: samsung: Move FIMD headers to include/video/ Message-Id: <50212EBA.5000600@samsung.com> List-Id: References: <1344342872-7904-1-git-send-email-l.krishna@samsung.com> <20120807143342.GD18957@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120807143342.GD18957@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Leela Krishna Amudala , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, ben-linux@fluff.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com On 08/07/2012 04:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:04:30PM +0530, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote: >> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/regs-fb-v4.h | 159 -------------------- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c | 2 +- >> drivers/video/s3c-fb.c | 2 +- >> .../plat/regs-fb.h => include/video/samsung_fimd.h | 152 +++++++++++++++++-- > > Isn't include/video for framebuffer drivers? Isn't this more a DRM thing? > Wouldn't include/drm therefore be more appropriate? Those headers are now used by both: framebuffer and Exynos DRM driver. And probably the framebuffer driver has more users, as it also covers older FIMD devices than those found on exynos4/5 SoCs. So include/video seems equally right (or wrong) as include/drm. There have been some efforts, or at least requirements raised, to create some common low level API for framebuffer and DRM drivers, but nothing has clarified yet AFAICS.