Re: cirrusdrmfb broken with simplefb

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:13:59 +0100,
David Herrmann wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
> >> >> The "default <wx> if <yz>" only works if the config hasn't been set at
> >> >> all, yet. Even a "# CONFIG_* is unset" causes the "default" value to
> >> >> be ignored.
> >> >
> >> > Yes.  I didn't suggest the strict dependency like below, just because
> >> > I assumed you didn't add it intentionally.
> >>
> >> It doesn't work. If CONFIG_FB=n this breaks.
> >>
> >> >> How about adding "depends on (FB_SIMPLE = y)" for X86_SYSFB? I guess I
> >> >> will try that and send a patch.
> >> >
> >> > That's in general a bad approach.  If the strict dependency is
> >> > allowed, a more intuitive way is to give a reverse selection.  But
> >> > then you'd need to correct the help text, too, as it's implemented
> >> > already as a dependency.
> >>
> >> Well, X86_SYSFB just changes the way x86-bootup code handles
> >> firmware-framebuffers. The option makes sense with CONFIG_FB=n or also
> >> CONFIG_DRM=n. However, currently the only driver that can profit from
> >> this is FB_SIMPLE. So I decided to set X86_SYSFB=n as default and
> >> no-one should ever bother (except for people who *really* want this).
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, people still enable it without understanding it.
> >> Changing FB_SIMPLE or other config options doesn't protect against
> >> that, instead I need to make X86_SYSFB fool-proof so it's only
> >> activated if people seriously *want* it.
> >
> > It's not N as default.  It's just unset.  People don't take it
> > seriously as default N unless you explicitly write it.  And, more
> > importantly, your help text even suggests to choose Y as default (in
> > the end of text).  And it doesn't mention how to enable simplefb
> > although it's recommended.  So you can't expect that people do the
> > right thing only from that.
> 
> Yepp, that was my fault.. Already changed to 'N' in the new patch.
> 
> >> Doing a "select FB_SIMPLE" doesn't work due to the non-recursive
> >> behavior of "select".
> >
> > There is one single dependency in FB_SIMPLE, so it's relatively easy
> > in this case.
> >
> >> It will only enable FB_SIMPLE but not the
> >> dependencies of FB_SIMPLE (eg., FB). So I'm now left with "depends on
> >> (FB_SIMPLE = y)". And I actually like this, because there's no gain in
> >> using X86_SYSFB if you don't have FB_SIMPLE enabled. And it hides
> >> X86_SYSFB from all non-developers who currently shouldn't care anyway.
> >> Most sysfb code is enabled regardless of X86_SYSFB, the option really
> >> just controls the compatibility mode. And unless SimpleDRM is merged,
> >> there's little gain by setting it for non-developers.
> >
> > Then better to have mentioned in the text or changelog.  Or make it
> > depends on CONFIG_EXPERT (it doesn't help much, though, but can be
> > some excuse :)
> 
> I didn't expect it to blow up in my face this way.. probably should
> have. But that's why the changelog didn't mention it. Regarding
> CONFIG_EXPERT, I doubt that helps much and it's a little bit late for
> an excuse ;)
> 
> >> So I guess "depends on (FB_SIMPLE = y)" is the safest way. I will send
> >> a patch for that. If you're still not convinced, I'd be glad to hear
> >> your concerns.
> >
> > Why not just select both FB and FB_SIMPLE from X86_SYSFB?
> >
> > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > @@ -2299,6 +2299,8 @@ source "drivers/rapidio/Kconfig"
> >
> >  config X86_SYSFB
> >         bool "Mark VGA/VBE/EFI FB as generic system framebuffer"
> > +       select FB
> > +       select SIMPLE_FB
> >         help
> >           Firmwares often provide initial graphics framebuffers so the BIOS,
> >           bootloader or kernel can show basic video-output during boot for
> >
> >
> > The "depends on" hides the option until the dependency is satisfied,
> > so especially when the dependency go over different sections, it
> > should be avoided.  The reverse selection can be problematic
> > sometimes, but as long as the dependency chain is short, it works more
> > easily.
> 
> Is the select-chain recursive?

Yes, the select-chain is recursive.  But select doesn't care about
"depends on", so if a selected item depends on anything else, all
these have to be selected explicitly as well.  In your case, luckily
it's a trivial one-level selection.

> So are FB_SIMPLE-select lines recognized?
> If yes, this could work. Although given the complaints about bad
> simplefb performance compared to vesafb, I'm still not sure. Yeah,
> this time people are to blame as they *explicitly* selected X86_SYSFB
> instead of plain old vesafb, but it's still annoying to hear the
> complaints.

Right.  The performance is a different level of problem, and it's
their choice now.

> I will think about it some more time and send a v2-patch later today
> if nothing else comes to mind.

Great, thanks!


Takashi