Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] allow simple{fb, drm} drivers to be used on non-x86 EFI platforms

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