On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +static unsigned long hijack_firmware_fb(struct drm_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
>> + unsigned long size;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + /* if we have simplefb/efifb, find it's aperture and hijack
>> + * that before we kick out the firmware fb's.
>> + *
>> + * TODO we probably should hold registration_lock
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < FB_MAX; i++) {
>> + struct fb_info *fb = get_fb_info(i);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fb))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (!fb->apertures->count)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /* if we find efifb or simplefb, we are about to
>> + * kick them out, so hijack their memory:
>> + */
>> + if ((strcmp(fb->fix.id, "EFI VGA") == 0) ||
>> + (strcmp(fb->fix.id, "simple") == 0)) {
>> +
>> + priv->vram.paddr = fb->apertures->ranges[0].base;
>> + size = fb->apertures->ranges[0].size;
>> + }
>> +
>> + put_fb_info(fb);
>> +
>> + if (size)
>> + return size;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> I think this should be a helper function in at least drm_fb_helper.c,
> which would then fill in both base&size in a passed-in struct. But
> yeah this seems a lot better than the old one.
Yeah, I guess we could do that.. but probably not in drm_fb_helper.c
since that is compile-time optional. Better suggestions about where
it should live? If you have fbdev but not DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION you
still want to do this, I think. Otherwise we can't completely take
over the display setup by firmware (ie. no way to create
plane->state->fb).
BR,
-R
> In the future we could then also extend this with kicking out other
> firmware fb things.
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
