On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 at 11:52, Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > Am 21.11.25 um 17:31 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 17:26, Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Am 21.11.25 um 17:19 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel: > >>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 17:09, Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Am 21.11.25 um 17:08 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: > >>>>> Hi > >>>>> > >>>>> Am 21.11.25 um 16:56 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel: > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>> Probably from a78835b86a44 ("PCI/VGA: Select SCREEN_INFO on X86") > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > >>>> > >>> Yes, if I merge back -rc2 first, I can apply patches 1-5 onto my > >>> efi/next tree. But then I hit > >>> > >>> Applying: sysfb: Move edid_info into sysfb_primary_display > >>> error: sha1 information is lacking or useless > >>> (drivers/gpu/drm/sysfb/efidrm.c). > >>> error: could not build fake ancestor > >>> Patch failed at 0006 sysfb: Move edid_info into sysfb_primary_display > >>> > >>> If you prefer, you can take the whole lot via the sysfb tree instead, > >>> assuming it does not depend on the EDID changes I already queued up? > >> Sure, I can also add it to the drm-misc tree. ETA in upstream would be > >> v6.20-rc1. > >> > > But does that mean the EDID firmware on non-x86 will have to wait for > > 6.21? I was trying to avoid making this a 6 month effort. > > No problem. Then let me rebase onto linux-next and put the existing EDID > patches for EFI on top. It's mostly acked or reviewed already. Once we > have it in good shape we can merged it all at once via the linux-efi > tree. Does that work for you? >
Sounds good.
