Re: [RFC v2 0/5] Common Display Framework

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Rob Clark [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The other thing I'd like you guys to do is kill the idea of fbdev and
v4l drivers that are "shared" with the drm codebase, really just
implement fbdev and v4l on top of the drm layer, some people might
think this is some sort of maintainer thing, but really nothing else
makes sense, and having these shared display frameworks just to avoid
having using drm/kms drivers seems totally pointless. Fix the drm
fbdev emulation if an fbdev interface is needed. But creating a fourth
framework because our previous 3 frameworks didn't work out doesn't
seem like a situation I want to get behind too much.

yeah, let's not have multiple frameworks to do the same thing.. For
fbdev, it is pretty clear that it is a dead end.  For v4l2
(subdev+mcf), it is perhaps bit more flexible when it comes to random
arbitrary hw pipelines than kms.  But to take advantage of that, your
userspace isn't going to be portable anyways, so you might as well use
driver specific properties/ioctls.  But I tend to think that is more
useful for cameras.  And from userspace perspective, kms planes are
less painful to use for output than v4l2, so lets stick to drm/kms for
output (and not try to add camera/capture support to kms).. k, thx

Yeah, I guess having a v4l device also exported by the same driver
that exports the drm interface might make sense in some cases. But in
many cases I think the video part is just an independent IP block and
shuffling data around with dma-buf is all we really need. So yeah, I
guess sharing display resources between v4l and drm kms driver should
be a last resort option, since coordination (especially if it's
supposed to be somewhat dynamic) will be extremely hairy.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch