Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic

From: Thomas Zimmermann
Date: Fri Nov 12 2021 - 06:23:25 EST


Hi

Am 12.11.21 um 12:20 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]


This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing
code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver.
It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO

Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
Is that established kernel terminology?

I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
the driver that would not consult this function, right?

We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be
called generic or firmware driver.

My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation
detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc
driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test
for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of
the driver and not even load it.

How about we invert the test function and use something like

bool drm_firmware_drivers_only()


That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me.

There was also another bikeshed about where to put the function declaration,
I added to <drm/drm_mode_config.h> but with that name I believe that should
be in <drm/drm_drv.h> instead.

I agree with drm_drv.h. It's a DRM-wide function and it fit's there best, I'd say.

Best regards
Thomas


Best regards, --
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat


--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature