Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> writes: > Hi > > Am 08.01.26 um 19:10 schrieb Brian Norris: >> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:19:40PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >>> Coreboot implements framebuffer support via simplefb. Provide a >>> native DRM driver. Keep the simplefb code for now. >> I'm not much of a DRM-er, but what's blocking us from just replacing the >> simplefb driver with DRM completely? Just being conservative and >> allowing flexibility? Or are there technical reasons this wouldn't be a >> proper replacement? It sounds like supporting 2 drivers provides at >> least some small complications, like in patch 1, where you're trying to >> avoid repeating similar logic in 2 framebuffer-handling drivers.
> > Yes, that's true. > > There are currently two drivers that bind to the created > simple-framebuffer: fbdev's simplefb and DRM's simpledrm. The new > corebootdrm intents to replace simpledrm. And simplefb is deprecated: if > no one uses that any longer, I'm all for removing coreboot's current > framebuffer handling. > > Best regards > Thomas > As Thomas said, simplefb has already been replaced by simpledrm. DRM provides a lot of advantages over simplefb, for instance is a KMS driver so one could start KMS apps (e.g., a wayland compositor) which is not possible with simplefb. And as Thomas said, fbdev is deprecated and likely going away at some point in the future. The real question is about simpledrm vs corebootdrm but Thomas also has explained why that change is an improvement. Then simpledrm could only focus on DT based systems and have dedicated drivers for EFI, VESA and Coreboot system framebuffers. -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
