Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 16:35:58 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Johannes Lundberg <johalun0@gmail.com> Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD X11 mailing list <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>, "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>, Niclas Zeising <zeising+freebsd@daemonic.se>, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pinter@hardenedbsd.org>, Rozhuk Ivan <rozhuk.im@gmail.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Deprecation and removal of the drm2 driver Message-ID: <20180522233558.GB97708@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAECmPwsfSSYtcHypWej4vTiDJy_wHM0pm8YchZniAe17ojXGgA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfoMrFCyPteChSWgfYRY-uOyazzR0ZbYvp_OVmXRTe-Hqw@mail.gmail.com> <20180520164011.GA6276@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <88843bfb-34de-382c-9409-83f9ad54c8c4@daemonic.se> <CAPQ4ffvd1da%2BiMXtPfz%2BxETqPZwgmNoBa5yZMSF26qPMkSD2qQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180521024050.0857a787@gmail.com> <20180521170728.GA14025@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20180522011543.3f621882@gmail.com> <CAHM0Q_ND3_4EB7mXoPK94wQSXsrgpvLO8D2kRDMnA=pZ4wLzUA@mail.gmail.com> <20180521224927.GA9925@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAECmPwsfSSYtcHypWej4vTiDJy_wHM0pm8YchZniAe17ojXGgA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Johannes Lundberg wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 23:50 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 03:20:49PM -0700, K. Macy wrote: > > > > > > > > I just ask. > > > > Or why not include drm-next to base svn repo and add some > > > > option to make.conf to swith drm2/dem-next ? > > > > > > Even if it's not being built on amd64 we're still responsible for > > > keeping it building on !amd64 so long as it's in base. This makes > > > changing APIs and universe runs more burdensome. The graphics > > > developers have given you notice that it will now be your collective > > > responsibility to keep it up to date. > > > > > > > Not quite. One graphics developer has indicated a desire > > to remove working code, because it interferes with the > > graphics developers' port on a single architecture. There > > is no indication by that graphics developer that drm2 will > > be available in ports. You can go read the original post > > here: > > > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-May/069401.html > > > > The last paragraph is > > > > What does the community think? Is there anyone still using > > the drm2 driver on 12-CURRENT? If so, what is preventing > > you from switching to the port? > > > > The answer to the last two questions are "yes" and "the port > > does not work on i386". > > > > What is wrong with using > > > > .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != amd64 > > ... > > .endif > > > > to enable/disable drm2? > > The answer to the first question is that the consensus seem to be that > moving to a port is best for the _majority_. Best for amd64. For the majority, if one starts X, it automatically loads drm2 if one allows X to configure itself and drm2 applies. It's automatically loaded on both by i386 laptop and amd64 desktop. > Let me ask you, what’s wrong with this one-liner after base install > pkg install drm2 > ? 1) The original email did not indicate the code would be moved to a port. It simply said removed. 2) Nothing wrong if you know where to go looking for drm2. FreeBSD goes from having drm2 automatically loaded for a user to hoping that a user knows about a port. 3) I've already posted a 2-line patch for amd64 (twice actually). How many lines are needed to make the port? -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180522233558.GB97708>