On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 10:19:03AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 16.01.26 um 10:13 schrieb Tzung-Bi Shih: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 08:57:10AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > > > Coreboot implements framebuffer support via simple-framebuffer. Provide a > > > dedicated DRM driver. Keep the simple-framebuffer code for now. > > > > > > For each firmware's provided framebuffer, we prefer a dedicated DRM driver > > > tailored towards the platform's feature set. The coreboot framebuffer > > > device currently creates a simple-framebuffer device for the provided > > > framebuffer aperture. But simple-framebuffer is for DeviceTree nodes; not > > > for coreboot. The simple-framebuffer infrastructure should be phased out > > > for non-DT use cases. Coreboot is one of the final users of the code > > > (besides n64). > > > > > > Patches 1 to 5 start by fixing problems in the coreboot framebuffer > > > implementation. There is a possible dangling pointer, the memory is > > > marked as busy, the device hierarchy is incorrect, and a few minor things. > > > > > > Patches 6 to 9 prepare the coreboot support for use by external drivers. > > > Specifically, structures for the entries os the coreboot payload table > > > have to be exported. > > > > > > Patches 10 to 12 add corebootdrm, a DRM driver for the new > > > coreboot-framebuffer platform device. Corebootdrm follows the pattern > > > established by similar drivers. It also uses the same sysfb helpers. It > > > is therefore fairly small. With patch 11, it has feature parity with > > > simpledrm on the old simple-framebuffer. Patch 12 adds support for panel- > > > orientation flags that coreboot makes available. > > What would you suggest to submit the patches (e.g., which patches submit > > through which tree)? Do they have build-time dependencies? > > The patches have no dependencies besides the coreboot and DRM frameworks > they operate in. DRM moves a lot faster than coreboot, and you likely don't > have the latest DRM in the coreboot tree. So I'd take them via DRM, if > possible.
Let's take this way. I'll try to review the patches and provide my A-b tag too if possible. > Note that there will be at least one more update to this series to address > review comments. Sure, no rush.
