On 5/4/22 12:58, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 09:15:40AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Indicate to fbdev subsystem that the registered framebuffer is provided by >> the system firmware, so that it can handle accordingly. For example, would >> unregister the FB devices if asked to remove the conflicting framebuffers. >> >> Add a new DRM_FB_FW field to drm_fbdev_generic_setup() options parameter. >> Drivers can use this to indicate the FB helper initialization that the FB >> registered is provided by the firmware, so it can be configured as such. >> >> Suggested-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Changes in v3: >> - Drop the firmware local variable (Laurent Pinchart). >> - Use DRM_FB_OPTION() since DRM_FB_SET_OPTION() got renamed (kernel test robot). > > Just for the record what I brought up on irc already: > > FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE is purely an internal flag with no uapi impact, and > it's only to control whether we nuke this from > remove_conflicting_framebuffer or not. Since simpledrm only ever binds > against sysfb I think it'd be cleaner to only rely on that, and relegate That's not actually true. The OF subsystem also registers "simple-framebuffer" devices when there are Device Tree nodes that contain a "simple-framebuffer" compatible string. In that case these pdev will also bind against simpledrm. > that entire FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE misc hack to the fbdev dungeons and let > it quietly wither away there. > > Also I'm not a huge fan of these midlayer flags in general :-) And while I agree with you that these midlayer flags are horrible, that is what any other fbdev that makes use of a firmware-provided framebuffer set, so simpledrm emulated fbdev shouldn't be the exception IMO. -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Linux Engineering Red Hat
