Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1674206 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb

Started bySudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
First post2017-06-25 14:50 +0200
Last post2017-06-29 15:00 +0200
Articles 6 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 14:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-25 15:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-25 16:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 17:10 +0200
            Re: 答复: [PATCH 1/2] staging:  sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-29 15:00 +0200

#1674206 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb

FromSudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-25 14:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb
Message-ID<tWf9f-58S-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> From: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> 
> If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa
> and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to
> effectively work with xorg.
> So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
> ---

Hi Greg,
You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review
comments from you about this one?

--
Regards
Sudip

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1674208

FromGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-06-25 15:00 +0200
Message-ID<tWfiW-5cl-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1674206
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:43:34PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > From: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > 
> > If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa
> > and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to
> > effectively work with xorg.
> > So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
> > ---
> 
> Hi Greg,
> You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review
> comments from you about this one?

All of the other complaints about this patch were not sufficient for me
to justify ignoring it?  Why would I not listen to them?

Please fix and resend if you want it applied.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1674222

FromSudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-25 16:00 +0200
Message-ID<tWgeZ-5Mx-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1674208
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:43:34PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > From: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > > 
> > > If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa
> > > and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to
> > > effectively work with xorg.
> > > So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Hi Greg,
> > You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review
> > comments from you about this one?
> 
> All of the other complaints about this patch were not sufficient for me
> to justify ignoring it?  Why would I not listen to them?

This patch is doing what all the drm drivers are doing. So you want
us to do something completely new rather than following the established
practice of a drm driver?

--
Regards
Sudip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1674225

FromGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-06-25 16:30 +0200
Message-ID<tWgI1-6aZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1674222
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:43:34PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > From: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > > > 
> > > > If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa
> > > > and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to
> > > > effectively work with xorg.
> > > > So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Hi Greg,
> > > You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review
> > > comments from you about this one?
> > 
> > All of the other complaints about this patch were not sufficient for me
> > to justify ignoring it?  Why would I not listen to them?
> 
> This patch is doing what all the drm drivers are doing. So you want
> us to do something completely new rather than following the established
> practice of a drm driver?

I despise cargo-cult programming.  You could not answer the "why", so
why would I accept such a patch?

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1674236

FromSudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-25 17:10 +0200
Message-ID<tWhkK-6F0-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1674225
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:43:34PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > > From: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa
> > > > > and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to
> > > > > effectively work with xorg.
> > > > > So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review
> > > > comments from you about this one?
> > > 
> > > All of the other complaints about this patch were not sufficient for me
> > > to justify ignoring it?  Why would I not listen to them?
> > 
> > This patch is doing what all the drm drivers are doing. So you want
> > us to do something completely new rather than following the established
> > practice of a drm driver?
> 
> I despise cargo-cult programming.  You could not answer the "why", so
> why would I accept such a patch?

Did a quick research into "why".
The patch d8801e4df91e ("x86/PCI: Set IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW only for the
default VGA device") has started setting IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW in flags
for a default VGA device and that is being done only for x86.
And so, we will need that #ifdef to check IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW as that
needs to be checked only for a x86 and not for other arch.

--
Regards
Sudip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1677729 — Re: 答复: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb

FromGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-06-29 15:00 +0200
SubjectRe: 答复: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb
Message-ID<tXHd8-7Io-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1674236
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:18:57AM +0000, Teddy Wang 王力强 wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> 	Is the reason Sudip gave you for the question of "why" sufficient ?
> This patch is very important for the driver running in the X86 platform.  Without this patch, many SM750 graphic chip customers complain  the Ubuntu OS can't run well. When they install the OS, the screen will be full of garbage in xorg.
> Ubuntu 16.04.2 LTS and above will enable sm750 staging driver by default.  We need this patch. Thanks.

This patch is long-gone from my queue, it needs to be resent with the
added information for me to be able to accept it.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web