Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:30:00 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: "DRM removal soon" is premature Message-ID: <20190214233000.GA2752@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20190214225810.kmfxzeuvr7t7gget@smtp.freebsd.org> References: <20190214180101.GB67712@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CANCZdfqy%2Bs3QtEu%2BAhTm-HoJfByjeA9EeUGZ_3VrThvrcWvBow@mail.gmail.com> <20190214182419.GA67872@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CANCZdfrBTjV-rqU-VNRkFeQV2449ebgqi9qAAXYR6J_wygfxPg@mail.gmail.com> <20190214190244.GA68143@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CANCZdfqx%2BnLoV_bJU0cARxgz4ZBR-X_eZyFCVWzozuir5FqwnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190214191739.GA68371@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190214225810.kmfxzeuvr7t7gget@smtp.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 02:58:10PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Not to pile on unnecessarily here, but I think the fundamental issue is that > there is nobody who wants to maintain the in-tree DRM, and removal is likely a > better option to half-assed maintenance. I'd imagine there'd be a different > discussion if several developers were clamoring to keep this driver well > maintained in the tree. > Unhooking a driver from the build, so that it cannot expose a change that breaks said driver is certainly a way to ensure the driver is not maintained. Wasted a weekend trying to find and attempting to fix the damage caused by a change in src/sys to the drm-legacy-kmod port. You know, the port that was promised as part of the drm2 removal. I would have spent this weekend testing changes to cexp, cexpf, the soon-to-be-submitted cexpl, ccosh, ccoshf, and the soon-to-be-submitted ccoshl. That's all on hold now as I'm not sure when I'll be able to carve out time for testing. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190214233000.GA2752>