[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f13e6f2-a87c-83ac-7119-8632c8c8ac8e@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:34:54 +0100
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Martin Mares <mj@....cz>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Simon Trimmer <simont@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-video@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] simplefb: Enable boot time VESA graphic mode
selection.
On 2/23/22 19:23, Michal Suchánek wrote:
[snip]
>> My point about the subject line remains thought, I would use something like:
>>
>> firmware: sysfb: Enable boot time VESA graphic mode selection for simplefb
>
> I see where the confusion comes from.
>
Yeah. And just to clarify, the "simplefb" in the subject line I proposed
was about the sysfb simplefb and not the fbdev simplefb :)
> The efifb (and probably vesafb) has implicit unstated dependency on
> sysfb. So the drivers that select BOOT_VESA_SUPPORT should instead
> depend on SYSFB, and then SYSFB can select BOOT_VESA_SUPPORT, and it
> will look much saner.
>
That indeed would be much nicer. And I agree with you that there's an
implicit dependency that should be made explicit since SYSFB is what
registers the "efi-framebuffer" or "vesa-framebuffer" if SYSFB_SIMPLEFB
is not enabled.
Should SYSFB should only select BOOT_VESA_SUPPORT if x86 ? I know that
in practice shouldn't matter because BOOT_VESA_SUPPORT is under x86 but
I guess is more correct if that's the case.
And I think that FB_SIMPLE should depend on SYSFB_SIMPLEFB if !OF (since
a "simple-framebuffer" platform device could be registered by OF if a
Device Tree node with compatible "simple-framebuffer" exists).
Best regards, --
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists