On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:10 AM Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Kevin Kofler via devel > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of > > > the Change scope or not. The paragraph about the `uvesafb` driver seems > > > kind of aspirational and doesn't seem to commit to anything. The > > > "Benefit to Fedora" section states "Verified modern supported paths for > > > cases currently handled by vesa/fbdev", but I'm not 100% clear what is > > > meant by that. > > > > IMHO, it is not acceptable to remove the vesa driver without having > > something like uvesafb to replace it. > > I like how I'm being told _not_ to find out where the remaining bugs > are in our native drivers, and instead preserve something awful for > eternity. Turns out the support story is less bad than I thought, the simpledrm change was more powerful than I knew. I've updated the change again but the short story is vga= on kcmdline will give you just as good of support as UEFI framebuffer. - ajax _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
