Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:06:35 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Yoshihiro Ota <ota@j.email.ne.jp>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD X11 mailing list <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>, greg@unrelenting.technology Subject: Re: DRM removal soon Message-ID: <20190228210635.GA31257@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <201902282034.x1SKYWMi006337@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190228194929.GA18747@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <201902282034.x1SKYWMi006337@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:34:32PM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <20190228194929.GA18747@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Steve > Kargl w > rites: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:22:52AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote: > > > On February 28, 2019 11:15:11 AM PST, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washin > > gton.edu> wrote: > > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:49:51AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> The ports work as advertised. IMO graphics/drm-legacy should be > > > >> depreciated sooner than later. I would expect the graphics team > > > >> could better spend their time and energy on drm-current, which > > > >> btw works perfectly on my old laptop converted to i386 testbed, > > > >> than maintaining old bitrot. When can we expect drm-legacy to > > > >> finally be removed from ports? > > > >> > > > > > > > >drm-legacy-kmd has already been *depreciated*? > > > > > > > >Perhaps, you meant deprecated. :) > > > > > > > >Hopefully, never. drm-current-kmod locks up my laptop. > > > >drm-legacy-kmod works. > > > > > > Yes. drm-legacy-kmod should be removed from ports sooner > > > than later. drm-current-kind works perfectly on older gear > > > like my 13 year old Pentium-M, which was repurposed as an > > > i386 test platform years ago. > > > > Great drm-current-kmod works for you. > > drm-current-kmod DOES NOT work on my i386 laptop. > > Hmmm. I could never get drm-legacy-kmod to work properly on my old > Pentium-M laptop resorting to VESA. When I upgraded my main laptop > (which also has an i386 partition and two amd64 partitions) to > drm-current-kmod, rsyncing the i386 /usr/local, it worked with a minor > tweak to xorg.conf. > > Using drm-legacy-kmod on the old machine would initially freeze the > display, ultimately freezing the whole machine. No such issues with > drm-current-kmod. > Seems our experiences are exact opposites. :( I suppose it is the bane of those of who cannot afford new hardware every 2 or 3 years. > > > The reason to remove old software from base is evident. > > > The same reason holds for ports as well. The ports team > > > are also a limited resource. > > > > The drm-legacy-kmod port works. It would never have been > > broken (and it would be unneeded) if the *working* drm2 code > > in base were never disconnected from the build. The > > drm-legacy-kmod port would not have been broken for a month > > if an exp-run were done when modifications to pmap.h had > > been done. > > The issue is developer time. > Yes, I know all to well. I started working on libm some 15 to 20 years ago because I need(ed) long double version of the Bessel function routines. Still, haven't found the time to write those functions. > > > > I get it. drm-current-kmod works for you, so lets penalize > > everyone else by removing working code. > > The graphics team supports four DRM ports. When FreeBSD-13 will be > released that will become five. This is unsustainable. Additionally > i386 and for that matter all 32-platform support has become an > afterthought. More often than not it is 32-bit that breaks. This is > especially true when what one expects to be a simple one line commit > that works on amd64 totally hoses i386. drm-legacy-kmod was broken on > i386 for a while for this very reason. I haven't looked at what the drm-fbsd11.2-kmod or 12.0 mean. I assume that these are the ports for 11-stable and 12-stable, and I assume that these work on those specific stable branches. If that is the case, then there is no support needed by graphics teams unless a src committer merges somethings from -current that breaks stability. If the MFC is a security fix, then the graphics teams may need to asked about helping troubleshoot the 11.2 and 12.0 kmods; otherwise, then MFC should not happen if it breaks stability. Or, perhaps, I have a s different definition of 'stable. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190228210635.GA31257>