All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:01:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPbJJ/0tSO/fuW7a@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXErHteZ+MKYvp=yYmwVxV3A=vjtnG351hZHV+3BPwDQvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 09:10:52AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 04:59, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 18:11, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:01:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPbJJ/0tSO/fuW7a@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXErHteZ+MKYvp=yYmwVxV3A=vjtnG351hZHV+3BPwDQvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 09:10:52AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 04:59, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 18:11, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.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

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:01:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPbJJ/0tSO/fuW7a@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXErHteZ+MKYvp=yYmwVxV3A=vjtnG351hZHV+3BPwDQvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 09:10:52AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 04:59, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 18:11, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:01:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPbJJ/0tSO/fuW7a@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXErHteZ+MKYvp=yYmwVxV3A=vjtnG351hZHV+3BPwDQvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 09:10:52AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 04:59, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 18:11, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.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

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-20 13:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-25 13:09 [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb,drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} " Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] drivers/firmware: move x86 Generic System Framebuffers support Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-06-25 13:09   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-13 16:59 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb,drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-13 16:59   ` [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} " Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-13 16:59   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-13 16:59   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-15  8:11   ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-15  8:11     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-15  8:11     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-15  8:11     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-19  2:59     ` Dave Airlie
2021-07-19  2:59       ` Dave Airlie
2021-07-19  2:59       ` Dave Airlie
2021-07-19  2:59       ` Dave Airlie
2021-07-19  7:10       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-07-19  7:10         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-07-19  7:10         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-07-19  7:10         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-07-20 13:01         ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2021-07-20 13:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 13:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 13:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 13:42           ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-20 13:42             ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-20 13:42             ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-20 13:59             ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 13:59               ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 13:59               ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 13:59               ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-20 18:38               ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-20 18:38                 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-20 18:38                 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-21  5:09                 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-21  5:09                   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-21  5:09                   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-21 10:07                   ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-21 10:07                     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-21 10:07                     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2021-07-21 10:15                     ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-21 10:15                       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-21 10:15                       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2021-07-21 11:23                       ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-21 11:23                         ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-21 11:23                         ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-21 11:23                         ` Daniel Vetter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YPbJJ/0tSO/fuW7a@phenom.ffwll.local \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=javierm@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=pbrobinson@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.