Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "fbcon: Disable accelerated scrolling"

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 02:01:44PM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:08:39PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote:
> >> > This reverts commit 39aead8373b3c20bb5965c024dfb51a94e526151.
> >> > 
> >> > Revert this patch.  This patch started to introduce the regression that
> >> > all hardware acceleration of more than 35 existing fbdev drivers were
> >> > bypassed and thus fbcon console output for those was dramatically slowed
> >> > down by factor of 10 and more.
> >> > 
> >> > Reverting this commit has no impact on DRM, since none of the DRM drivers are
> >> > tagged with the acceleration flags FBINFO_HWACCEL_COPYAREA,
> >> > FBINFO_HWACCEL_FILLRECT or others.
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v5.16
> >> 
> >> Why just 5.16?  This commit came in on 5.11 and was backported to
> >> 5.10.5.
> >> 
> >> As for "why", I think there was a number of private bugs that were
> >> reported in this code, which is why it was removed.  I do not think it
> >> can be safely added back in without addressing them first.  Let me go
> >> dig through my email to see if I can find them...
> >
> > Ah, no, that was just the soft scrollback code I was thinking of, which
> > was a different revert and is still gone, thankfully :)
> >
> > This one was just removed because Daniel noticed that only 3 drivers
> > used this (nouveau, omapdrm, and gma600), so this shouldn't have caused
> > any regressions in any other drivers like you are reporting here.
> 
> I'm counting more than 3 drivers using this. I think one of the reasons
> why it was reverted was that no one is actively maintaining fbdev. With
> Helge now volunteering i don't see a reason why it should stay reverted.
> If there are issues coming up i'm pretty sure Helge would care, and i
> would probably also take a look.

Ok, no objection from me, but I think Daniel should weigh in as it is
his commit that is being reverted here.

thanks,

greg k-h