[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXGrDm5yN5eRZJ0YAjCde=0Xw7hobC9Oz5CNovo0sWuM+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 12:24:32 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] allow the sysfb support to be used in non-x86 arches
Hello Javier,
On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 21:29, Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The x86 architecture platform has a Generic System Framebuffers (sysfb)
> support, that register a system frambuffer platform devices. It either
> registers a "simple-framebuffer" for the simple{fb,drm} drivers or legacy
> VGA/EFI FB devices for the vgafb/efifb drivers.
>
> Besides this, the EFI initialization code used by other architectures such
> as aarch64 and riscv, has similar logic but only register an EFI FB device.
>
> The sysfb is generic enough to be reused by other architectures and can be
> moved out of the arch/x86 directory to drivers/firmware, allowing the EFI
> logic used by non-x86 architectures to be folded into sysfb as well.
>
> Patch #1 in this series do the former while patch #2 the latter. This has
> been tested on x86_64 and aarch64 machines using the efifb, simplefb and
> simpledrm drivers. But more testing will be highly appreciated, to make
> sure that no regressions are being introduced by these changes.
>
> Since this touches both arch/{x86,arm,arm64,riscv} and drivers/firmware, I
> don't know how it should be merged. But I didn't find a way to split these.
>
We could merge this via the EFI tree without too much risk of
conflicts, I think.
However, I'd like to see a better explanation of why this is an improvement.
The diffstat does not show a huge net win, and it does not enable
anything we didn't already have before, right?
>
> Javier Martinez Canillas (2):
> drivers/firmware: move x86 Generic System Framebuffers support
> drivers/firmware: consolidate EFI framebuffer setup for all arches
>
> arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h | 5 +-
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 5 +-
> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h | 5 +-
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 27 +-----
> arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 3 -
> drivers/firmware/Kconfig | 30 +++++++
> drivers/firmware/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/firmware/efi/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/firmware/efi/efi-init.c | 90 -------------------
> .../firmware/efi}/sysfb_efi.c | 79 +++++++++++++++-
> {arch/x86/kernel => drivers/firmware}/sysfb.c | 42 +++++----
> .../firmware}/sysfb_simplefb.c | 31 ++++---
> .../x86/include/asm => include/linux}/sysfb.h | 34 +++----
> 16 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 176 deletions(-)
> rename {arch/x86/kernel => drivers/firmware/efi}/sysfb_efi.c (84%)
> rename {arch/x86/kernel => drivers/firmware}/sysfb.c (70%)
> rename {arch/x86/kernel => drivers/firmware}/sysfb_simplefb.c (82%)
> rename {arch/x86/include/asm => include/linux}/sysfb.h (68%)
>
> --
> 2.31.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists