linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] SimpleDRM & Sysfb

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:29:14 +0100
From:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc:	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] SimpleDRM & Sysfb

Hi

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23/01/14 16:14, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Another round of SimpleDRM patches. I somehow lost track of the last ones and as
>> this is a major rewrite, I'll just start at v1 again.
>>
>> Some comments up-front:
>>
>>  - @Ingo: Patch #1 and #2 are unchanged from the previous ML discussions. I
>>    included them in this series as the other patches depend on them. Could you
>>    pick them up for the x86 tree? The other 9 patches won't make it in 3.14 so
>>    no reason to put them through the DRM tree.
>>    All mentioned issues should be addressed. If there's still sth missing,
>>    please let me know.
>>
>>  - The DRM patches depend on my "DRM Anonymous Inode" patches. But it should be
>>    trivial to apply them on drm-next (I think only one line needs to be changed:
>>    i_mapping => dev_mapping).
>>
>>  - I tested the SimpleDRM fbdev fallback with linux-console+Xorg and it works
>>    fine. The DRM backend is only tested with some DRM tests I have locally. I
>>    have no idea how to make Xorg pick up a specific /dev/dri/card0 card. It
>>    always tells me "no screens found" (as the underlying device is not marked as
>>    boot_vga..). If someone knows how to tell Xorg to use card0, I'd gladly test
>>    this. But I'm no longer used to writing xorg.confs..
>>
>>
>> This series introduces two new concepts: sysfb and SimpleDRM
>> Sysfb is just a generalization of the x86-sysfb concept. It allows to register
>> firmware-framebuffers with the system as platform-devices. This way, drivers can
>> properly bind to these devices and we prevent multiple drivers from accessing
>> the same firmware-framebuffer.
>> Sysfb also provides hooks to get a safe handover to real hw-drivers (like i915).
>> Please see the "video: sysfb: add generic firmware-fb interface" patch for a
>> thorough description of the API. This patch also adds a rather verbose
>> documentation of all known firmware-fb facilities.
>>
>> As second part, this series introduces SimpleDRM. It's a very basic DRM driver
>> that can replace efifb, vesafb, simplefb and friends. It's 100% compatible to
>> the "udl" DRM driver, so user-space like xf86-video-modesetting can pick them up
>> just fine. User-space that cannot deal with drmModeDirtyFB() (like weston and
>> friends) currently cannot use SimpleDRM. However, that's also true for all other
>> DRM drivers which provide shadow framebuffers. We could provide something like
>> FB-DEFIO, but that's just useless overhead to paper of lazy user-space.
>>
>> I have tested this with all hardware that I have at home, with a lot hand-over
>> combinations (with/without SYSFB, with efifb/vesafb/simplefb, with SimpleDRM,
>> ...) and all worked great so far.
>
> What's the status with this one? Headed for 3.15?
>
> Are the SimpleDRM and sysfb linked somehow? (I.e. do they need to be in
> the same series?)
>
> And jfyi, the drivers/video/ changes will conflict with the
> drivers/video/ directory reorganization series, which may be merged for
> 3.15.

If simpledrm is included, then the series needs to be applied as a
whole. As Dave considered merging this for 3.15, I'd appreciate it if
you could ACK the fbdev related patches (they're really small!):
  fbdev: efifb: add dev->remove() callback
  fbdev: vesafb: add dev->remove() callback

Thanks
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/