On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 16:53, Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > Am 21.11.25 um 16:16 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 16:10, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025, at 14:36, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > >>> Replace screen_info and edid_info with sysfb_primary_device of type > >>> struct sysfb_display_info. Update all users. > >>> > >>> Sysfb DRM drivers currently fetch the global edid_info directly, when > >>> they should get that information together with the screen_info from their > >>> device. Wrapping screen_info and edid_info in sysfb_primary_display and > >>> passing this to drivers enables this. > >>> > >>> Replacing both with sysfb_primary_display has been motivate by the EFI > >>> stub. EFI wants to transfer EDID via config table in a single entry. > >>> Using struct sysfb_display_info this will become easily possible. Hence > >>> accept some churn in architecture code for the long-term improvements. > >> This all looks good to me, > >> > >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> > > Thanks > > >> > >> It should also bring us one step closer to eventually > >> disconnecting the x86 boot ABI from the kernel-internal > >> sysfb_primary_display. > >> > > Agreed > > > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> > > Thanks > > > > > I can take patches 1-2 right away, if that helps during the next cycle. > > From my sysfb-focused POV, these patches would ideally all go through > the same tree, say efi or generic arch, or whatever fits best. Most of > the other code is only renames anyway. >
I don't mind queueing all of it, but I did get a conflict on drivers/pci/vgaarb.c
