On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 04:59, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 18:11, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> 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?
Thanks,
Ard.
