[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPbJJ/0tSO/fuW7a@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:01:27 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} drivers to be used on
non-x86 EFI platforms
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 09:10:52AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 04:59, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 18:11, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Am 13.07.21 um 18:59 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> > > > On 6/25/21 3:09 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > > >> The simplefb and simpledrm drivers match against a "simple-framebuffer"
> > > >> device, but for aarch64 this is only registered when using Device Trees
> > > >> and there's a node with a "simple-framebuffer" compatible string.
> > > >>
> > > >> There is no code to register a "simple-framebuffer" platform device when
> > > >> using EFI instead. In fact, the only platform device that's registered in
> > > >> this case is an "efi-framebuffer", which means that the efifb driver is
> > > >> the only driver supported to have an early console with EFI on aarch64.
> > > >>
> > > >> The x86 architecture platform has a Generic System Framebuffers (sysfb)
> > > >> support, that register a system frambuffer platform device. It either
> > > >> registers a "simple-framebuffer" for the simple{fb,drm} drivers or legacy
> > > >> VGA/EFI FB devices for the vgafb/efifb drivers.
> > > >>
> > > >> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Any more comments on this series? It would be nice for this to land so the
> > > > simpledrm driver could be used on aarch64 EFI systems as well.
> > > >
> > > > The patches have already been acked by x86 and DRM folks.
> > >
> > > Time to get this merged, I'd say. People are asking for these patches
> > > already.
> >
> > Can we just merge via drm-misc and make sure the acks are present and
> > I'll deal with the fallout if any.
> >
>
> Fine with me. Could you stick it on a separate branch so I can double
> check whether there are any issues wrt the EFI tree?
It'll pop up in linux-next for integration testing or you can pick up the
patch here for test-merge if you want.
And since Dave has given a blanket cheque for handling fallout he'll deal
with the need for fixups too if there's any.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists