Hello,I have to agree, using DRM _really_ doesn't make sense for these, the devices in question are (AFAIK) simple I2C or SPI connected frame-buffer chips that are hooked up to equally simple TFT displays. There's no 3d acceleration at all from what I can tell, there's _very_ limited 2d acceleration, and most of the stuff that the DRM framework provides call-backs for would have to be done on the CPU anyway. On top of that, it's targeted at small embedded systems with limited memory, and the DRM framework is by no-means lightweight (TBH, fbdev isn't really either, but it's much more light weight than DRM).
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:27:01 +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
fbdev is (more or less) maintained, but it's a deprecated framework. All
new Linux display drivers should be done on DRM.
So let's not add any more new fbdev drivers.
I will continue to maintain the current fbdev drivers, and I don't mind
adding some new features to those current drivers, as long as the amount
of code required to add the features stays sensible.
I see we have three fbdev drivers in staging: xgifb, fbtft and sm750fb,
and the question is what to do with those.
xgifb was added in 2010, and is still in staging.
fbtft looks like maybe some kind of framework on top of fbdev, with
fbtft specific subdrivers... I didn't look at it in detail, but my gut
fbtft mainly drives some very simple I2C-based or SPI-based displays,
and DRM is I believe overkill for such displays. Last time I talked
with Laurent Pinchart about such drivers, I believe he said that such
simple drivers could probably continue to use the fbdev subsystem.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature