Re: [RFC] Deprecation and removal of the drm2 driver

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 23:50 Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 03:20:49PM -0700, K. Macy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just ask.
> > > > Or why not include drm-next to base svn repo and add some
> > > > option to make.conf to swith drm2/dem-next ?
> > >
> > > Even if it's not being built on amd64 we're still responsible for
> > > keeping it building on !amd64 so long as it's in base. This makes
> > > changing APIs and universe runs more burdensome. The graphics
> > > developers have given you notice that it will now be your collective
> > > responsibility to keep it up to date.
> > >
> >
> > Not quite.  One graphics developer has indicated a desire
> > to remove working code, because it interferes with the
> > graphics developers' port on a single architecture.  There
> > is no indication by that graphics developer that drm2 will
> > be available in ports.  You can go read the original post
> > here:
> >
> > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-May/069401.html
> >
> > The last paragraph is
> >
> >    What does the community think?  Is there anyone still using
> >    the drm2 driver on 12-CURRENT?  If so, what is preventing
> >    you from switching to the port?
> >
> > The answer to the last two questions are "yes" and "the port
> > does not work on i386".
> >
> > What is wrong with using
> >
> > .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != amd64
> > ...
> > .endif
> >
> > to enable/disable drm2?
> 
> The answer to the first question is that the consensus seem to be that
> moving to a port is best for the _majority_.

Best for amd64.  For the majority, if one starts X, it
automatically loads drm2 if one allows X to configure
itself and drm2 applies.  It's automatically loaded
on both by i386 laptop and amd64 desktop. 

> Let me ask you, what’s wrong with this one-liner after base install
> pkg install drm2
> ?

1) The original email did not indicate the code would be
   moved to a port.  It simply said removed.

2) Nothing wrong if you know where to go looking for drm2.
   FreeBSD goes from having drm2 automatically loaded for
   a user to hoping that a user knows about a port.

3) I've already posted a 2-line patch for amd64 (twice actually).
   How many lines are needed to make the port?

-- 
Steve