Hi,
On 27-06-18 11:47, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 11:15:20 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:36:09PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All,
Here is v4 of my patch-set, to delay fbcon taking over the console (and
binding to fbdev devices) until there actually is some text output to the
console. This is intended for use with the "quiet" cmdline option, in
combination with a bootloader which leaves the vendor's logo /
EFI bootgraphics put up by the firmware intact on the EFI framebuffer.
The end goal here is a boot where the firmware shows its boot graphics
and these stay in place for a couple of seconds until the GUI loads and
the GUI then smoothly takes over the framebuffer without any distruptions.
This patch-set spans 2 subsystems.
Petr, the printk subsys change is really trivial (1 line addition) can we
get your Acked-by for merging all 3 patches through the fbdev tree?
Changelog:
Changes in v4:
-Keep the comments about which fbcon functions need locks in place
Changes in v3:
-Export is_console_locke() for use in modules (as fbcon may be built as a .ko)
-Use WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED() in several places in the fbcon code to assert
proper locking (requested by Daniel)
-Unregister the fbcon-dummycon-output-notifier on fbcon_exit() (req. by Daniel)
-Document the fbcon=nodefer commandline option (req. by Emil)
Changes in v2:
-Check the whole string when checking for erases in putcs, instead of just
the first char
-Make dummycon_blank return 1, so that a redraw gets triggered and any text
rendered while blanked gets output so that it can trigger a deferred
takeover if one is pending
Wrt merging I think it'd be best if we stuff this into drm-misc-next -
that will increase testing by gpu drivers a lot, instead of a suprise when
the fbdev pull lands in upstream.
Bart, is that ok with you?
Not really, since there are efifb changes in the queue which depend
on this series I would really prefer to merge all patches through
fbdev tree.
Also fbdev tree is pulled into -next kernels so testing coverage
should be okay (I assume that everybody are testing -next kernels in
addition to their own branches :-)..
If you are talking about the "efifb: Copy the ACPI BGRT boot graphics to the
framebuffer" series, I could push those to drm-misc-next too (once acked).
I think most GPU driver developers are running drm-tip and not
-next, so putting things in drm-misc-next would give the changes somewhat
more test-exposure on a wider range of GPUs I believe. Where as -next
testing will likely be more server use-case oriented.
Alternatively you could merge things in the fbdev tree, do an
unmutable branch and then that could be merged into drm-misc-next by
the drm-misc-next maintainers.
Note either way is fine with me. This is up to you and Daniel.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
