On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:01:23 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > 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.
Agreed, just keep it as efifb(4). If we really need to change the name in the future we can do so. - todd
