Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Add Rockchip RGA support

From: Emil Velikov
Date: Wed Mar 30 2016 - 16:04:08 EST

On 29 March 2016 at 14:13, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28 March 2016 at 23:13, Heiko StÃbner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have the feeling we're going quite a bit off-topic right now :-) .
>> The binary-driver-crazyness, hasn't really anything to do with Yakir's support
>> for the RGA (which is about raster-graphics-acceleration, so 2d stuff).
>> And me mentioning the armsoc-ddx was merely a means to allow some sort of
>> different userspace user, as requested in your original mail ;-) .
> Seems like I forgot to state the obvious - for all the reasons
> mentioned, the armsoc ddx seems like a bad example.
>> Maybe you know a better use-case on where to demonstrate the viability of the
>> userspace API for it as originally requested.
> I'm afraid that my RockChip-foo is extremely limited. Perhaps the
> actual user of these should be mentioned ? xf86-video-rockhip (is
> there one ?) or any other effort/project that lacks some (all?) of the
> criticism listed.
> (Sort of) the bottom line - either reuse the existing interfaces or
> provide an approved, full blown userspace (libdrm demos/programs do
> not count) that uses the new interfaces.
> I haven't made these rules, just a fool^Wguy that repeats them so that
> people don't abuse them much. If in doubt check with Dave and Daniel V
> - they had enough repeating these.
I can see how my earlier response may have been come
across/interpreted as aggressive and/or demanding. Apologies anyone
got upset/annoyed.

Let me try in another light - if you guys are willing to have
xf86-video-rockchip or keep track of/co-maintain armsoc, pretty much
everyone will be over the moon. Personally I'd opt for the former,
taking the modesetting (the one in the xserver tree) as a base - it
has all the cool new bits ;-)