> From: Bryan Vyhmeister <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:54:08 -0700 > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 09:34 AM, Bryan Steele wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:32:00PM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:23:53AM -0500, joshua stein wrote: > > > > Any ideas for a new name? > > > > > > NetBSD calls their equivalent driver genfb(4). > > > > I wonder if it could be called wsfb(4) to match the X driver, or > > some variation on that to avoid the man page conflict. > > What about gfb(4) to shorten it a little further?
Already taken ;). wsfb(4) is certainly inappropriate; there are many wscons-based framebuffer drivers in our tree. I don't really consider it to be terribly important to rename the efifb(4). The chromebooks are weird machines, and I don't expect the coreboot-based framebuffer to show up on many systems.
