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.
