Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add Helge as fbdev maintainer

[Simon Ser]

On Tuesday, January 18th, 2022 at 12:41, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:41 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jani,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 1/17/22 22:40, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>> Seems like few people read linux-fbdev these days.
> > > >>
> > > >> How much traffic is there to linux-fbdev that is *not* Cc'd to dri-devel
> > > >> also?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't seem like much traffic - which IMHO is OK for such a tree with
> > > > mostly just maintenance patches.
> > > >
> > > >> Do we still need a separate linux-fbdev mailing list at all?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I want to have it seperate of dri-devel.
> > > > Actually I'd prefer to drop dri-devel from the list where patches
> > > > for fbdev are sent...
> > >
> > > Disagreed. If anything, this thread shows we can't have fbdev and drm in
> > > silos of their own.
> >
> > Unless DRM drops fbdev support. Isn't that the long-term plan anyway?
>
> No. There's way too much old stuff still using the fbdev interface to
> do that. We've even done things like standardize the vblank wait
> ioctl, because people need that.

Kind of related: I wonder, could we document somewhere that fbdev is a
deprecated uAPI? ie. new user-space shouldn't use it and should prefer DRM.
I don't see that mentioned anywhere, although it seems like it's the
consensus among all kernel developers I've talked to.