Re: [git pull] drm for v4.15

From: Nicolai HÃhnle
Date: Fri Nov 17 2017 - 07:51:24 EST

On 16.11.2017 21:57, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 16 November 2017 at 14:59, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is some code touched on sound/soc, but I think the sound tree
should have the same commits from the same base,so this may luck different
if you pulled it as I generated my pull request a couple of days ago. Otherwise
the highlights are below.

I'm more curious about (and disgusted by) this one:


wtf? It's full of defines that aren't actually used anywhere. Which
is just as well, since it doesn't seem to be included from anything

There's something odd about drm people. You guys like these completely
insane generated header files, and you seem to be populating the whole
tree with this odd and diseased notion of "generated header files are

Is somebody getting paid by line of code?

It would still cost less than transcribing each register and all it's fields by
hand from pdfs generated from the same place.

This raises the question of how people feel about putting the source database into the kernel (most likely as XML in our case) and auto-generating the headers from there instead.

I've been pondering doing this in Mesa for radeonsi for quite some time now. Given that the Mesa header style is different from the kernel header style, this could help reduce our IP review load going forward, and would have some other neat benefits as well.

Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.