From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:22:25 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Sean Paul Message-ID: <20180905142225.GA8757@kroah.com> References: <20180905135528.ase6evcv7rlwufyr@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] How can we treat staging drivers better? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 10:08:00AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > Which ones are you interested in? I'd always prefer to hand off staging > > drivers to an existing subsystem but it's not always clear who that > > should be. > > In the case of vboxvideo, we won't accept it in drm since it's not an > atomic driver. staging's bar for entry was lower, so the driver was > stuck in there. Perhaps we would have been better to take it in drm > behind a config, but that's not ideal either. for vboxvideo, I am pretty sure I got an "it's ok to put it there" from the DRM maintainers before I accepted it. So they know it is there :) If it's not ever going to be merged, maybe we should just drop it? thanks, greg k-h