On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
[snip]
This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver. It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO
Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"? Is that established kernel terminology?
I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is the driver that would not consult this function, right?
We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be called generic or firmware driver.
My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of the driver and not even load it.
How about we invert the test function and use something like
bool drm_firmware_drivers_only()
That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me.
There was also another bikeshed about where to put the function declaration, I added to <drm/drm_mode_config.h> but with that name I believe that should be in <drm/drm_drv.h> instead.
Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Linux Engineering Red Hat