Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:15:34AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:08:42 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > > probably best if I just summarize all

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-30 Thread Tomi Sarvela
On Monday, 30 January 2017 10:49:10 EET Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:30:43AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-misc. > > > html > > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html> >

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-30 Thread Boris Brezillon
Hi Daniel, On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:08:42 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi all, > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and > throw them out here for discussions: > > - When's a

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:30:43AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html > > apache throws 403. We're looking into it. Adding Tomi, who's herding the

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-30 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html apache throws 403. cheers, Gerd ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:50:42AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > >>> - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by > >>>

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-27 Thread Alex Deucher
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >>> - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by >>> the author? We have a bunch of drivers with effectively just 1 person

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-27 Thread Sean Paul
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Sean Paul wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> - Should it be an entire separate tree for soc drivers? Problem here >>>

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-27 Thread Liviu Dudau
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:55:22AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Liviu Dudau wrote: > >> I'm not certain number of people is a good metric, TBH. There are cases > >> where a lot of people are working on a driver, but the patches are not > >>

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Liviu Dudau wrote: >> I'm not certain number of people is a good metric, TBH. There are cases >> where a lot of people are working on a driver, but the patches are not being >> merged to the maintainer tree. In these cases, it makes sense to

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by >> the author? We have a bunch of drivers with effectively just 1 person >> working on it, where getting real review is hard. But otoh a few of >> those

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Sean Paul wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> - Should it be an entire separate tree for soc drivers? Problem here >> is that we lack a volunteer group (and imo it really should be a group >> to avoid

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Liviu Dudau
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:12:16PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric),

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Liviu Dudau
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:57:25PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Liviu > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > > > probably best

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Liviu On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and > > throw them out

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Eric Anholt
Daniel Vetter writes: > Hi all, > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and > throw them out here for discussions: > > - When's a driver small enough for a shared tree, and when

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Sean Paul
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi all, > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Sean Paul
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi all, > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and > throw them out here for discussions: > > - When's a driver small enough for a shared

Re: RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Liviu Dudau
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi all, Hi Daniel, > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and > throw them out here for discussions: > > - When's a driver small enough

RFC: drm-misc for small drivers?

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi all, We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and throw them out here for discussions: - When's a driver small enough for a shared tree, and when is a separate tree a good idea? i915 and amdgpu are