From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753603AbZIEXCF (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:02:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753392AbZIEXCE (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:02:04 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:60341 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819AbZIEXCE (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:02:04 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:01:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Florian Tobias Schandinat , linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, JosephChan@via.com.tw, ScottFang@viatech.com.cn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] viafb: 2D engine rewrite (and viafb patches in general) Message-Id: <20090905160140.7b36527f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090905161645.74a49a84@bike.lwn.net> References: <1251666438-5448-1-git-send-email-FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de> <1252097032-3568-1-git-send-email-FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de> <20090905161645.74a49a84@bike.lwn.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:16:45 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:43:52 +0000 > Florian Tobias Schandinat wrote: > > > This patch is a completly rewritten 2D engine. The engine is no longer > > in a default state but reinitialized every time to allow usage for both > > framebuffers regardless of their settings. > > The whole engine handling is concentrated in a big function which takes > > 16 parameters. > > Ouch, that's a lot of parameters. Might it be better to create a > structure to encapsulate all of those drawing parameters? I was wondering that. There's less advantage to that than usual because the call graph is not at all deep. > On a more general level: is anybody maintaining a tree for patches to > the viafb driver? -mm. > I'm going to be doing some work here (writing a > driver for the video capture engine), and there's patches sitting in > Harald's tree and the OLPC tree. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, that stuff doesn't exist. > It seems like a central merge point > might be a nice thing to have. > > I'd be happy to run such a tree. I'm really *not* qualified to be > passing judgment on patches to the framebuffer driver at this point, > though, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person for the job. Send 'em over. I haven't heard anything from the original viafb submitters for a long time. Hopefully Florian has time to help out with some review-n-test.