[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r0souv99.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:54:58 +0200
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To: Pierre Asselin <pa@...ix.com>
Cc: Pierre Asselin <pa@...ix.com>,
Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware/sysfb: Fix wrong stride when bits-per-pixel is
calculated
"Pierre Asselin" <pa@...ix.com> writes:
[...]
> [ 3.343433] sysfb: si->rsvd_size 0 si->rsvd_pos 0
Thanks for confirming this. I was expected that as mentioned since it was
the only reasonable explanation for your problem.
[...]
> What if _depth is low but the rsvd_ are right ?
> Then _width and _linelength would be inconsistent with _depth but
> consistent with the recomputed bits_per_pixel ? How many ways can the
> firmware lie ?
>
I don't know. But in your case the firmware is not reporting the mode
correctly since it is setting a framebuffer of 1024x768 and xRGB but
is not reporting si->rsvd_size=8 and si->rsvd_pos=24 as it should.
One option is to have a DMI match table similar to what we already have
for EFI machines in drivers/firmware/efi/sysfb_efi.c but also for BIOS.
The question then is if we can trust other systems to report a proper
rsvd_size and rsvd_pos...
> We need more testers, don't we ?
>
It's tricky, yes.
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists