Re: [PATCH 2/2] efi: earlycon: Add support for generic framebuffers and move to fbdev subsystem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 08:53:14AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 07:26:07PM +0300, Markuss Broks wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On 7/28/22 18:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 05:52:04PM +0300, Markuss Broks wrote:
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > 
> > > > On 7/28/22 17:39, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 05:28:19PM +0300, Markuss Broks wrote:
> > > > > > Add early console support for generic linear framebuffer devices.
> > > > > > This driver supports probing from cmdline early parameters
> > > > > > or from the device-tree using information in simple-framebuffer node.
> > > > > > The EFI functionality should be retained in whole.
> > > > > > The driver was disabled on ARM because of a bug in early_ioremap
> > > > > > implementation on ARM.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markuss Broks <markuss.broks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  12 +-
> > > > > >    MAINTAINERS                                   |   5 +
> > > > > >    drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig                  |   6 +-
> > > > > >    drivers/firmware/efi/Makefile                 |   1 -
> > > > > >    drivers/firmware/efi/earlycon.c               | 246 --------------
> > > > > >    drivers/video/fbdev/Kconfig                   |  11 +
> > > > > >    drivers/video/fbdev/Makefile                  |   1 +
> > > > > >    drivers/video/fbdev/earlycon.c                | 301 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >    8 files changed, 327 insertions(+), 256 deletions(-)
> > > > > >    delete mode 100644 drivers/firmware/efi/earlycon.c
> > > > > >    create mode 100644 drivers/video/fbdev/earlycon.c
> > > > > 
> > > > > That should be a rename, not a delete/create, right?
> > > > 
> > > > Should this change be split into two separate commits,
> > > > one for moving the file and the second for making changes?
> > > 
> > > Git will show a rename and modification properly, if you use -M to git
> > > format-patch, so it should be fine.
> > 
> > It appears that there are so many changes Git would refuse to make it a
> > "move" no matter what I do. What should be done here: should it be two
> > separate commits for move/change or should it just be kept as delete/create?
> 
> One commit to move the file, and then add your changes on top of it
> might be the easiest to review, right?

+1

I think this should be a least
- commit to move the file, as unchanged as possible
- commit to auto-select the right mapping mode (or maybe that's only in
  v2)
- actual change to add the simplefb support with a clearly readable diff

But also video/console is for Greg to maintain, I'm trying hard to not go
even more stupid :-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linmodem]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Kernel for ARM]

  Powered by Linux