Re: [PATCH v6 09/10] arm64: efi: Export screen_info

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 13:15, Nikhil Mahale <nmahale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/18/20 6:21 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 06:25, Nikhil Mahale <nmahale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/13/20 7:56 PM, Nikhil Mahale wrote:
> >>> On 3/20/20 3:16 AM, Michael Kelley wrote:
> >>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 2:27 AM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:18 AM Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Hyper-V frame buffer driver may be built as a module, and
> >>>>>>>> it needs access to screen_info. So export screen_info.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there any chance of using a more modern KMS based driver for the screen
> >>>>>>> than the old fbdev subsystem? I had hoped to one day completely remove
> >>>>>>> support for the old CONFIG_VIDEO_FBDEV and screen_info from modern
> >>>>>>> architectures.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The current hyperv_fb.c driver is all we have today for the synthetic Hyper-V
> >>>>>> frame buffer device.  That driver builds and runs on both ARM64 and x86.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not knowledgeable about video/graphics drivers, but when you
> >>>>>> say "a more modern KMS based driver", are you meaning one based on
> >>>>>> DRM & KMS?  Does DRM make sense for a "dumb" frame buffer device?
> >>>>>> Are there any drivers that would be a good pattern to look at?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It used to be a lot harder to write a DRM driver compared to an fbdev
> >>>>> driver, but this has changed to the opposite over the years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A fairly minimal example would be drivers/gpu/drm/pl111/pl111_drv.c
> >>>>> or anything in drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/, but you may want to look at the
> >>>>> other hypervisor platforms first, i.e drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.c,
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.c, drivers/gpu/drm/xen/xen_drm_front.c,
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_drv.c, and drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs_drv.c.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the pointers, especially for the other hypervisors.
> >>>>
> >>> Sorry if anybody in 'to' or 'cc' is receiving this reply multiple times.
> >>> I had configured by email client incorrectly to reply.
> >>>
> >>> screen_info is still useful with a modern KMS-based driver.  It exposes
> >>> the mode parameters that the GOP driver chose.  This information is
> >>> needed to implement seamless or glitchless boot, by both ensuring that
> >>> the scanout parameters don't change and being able to read back the
> >>> scanout image to populate the initial contents of the new surface.
> >>>
> >>> This works today on arches which implement (U)EFI and export
> >>> screen_info, including x86 and powerpc, but doesn't work on arm or
> >>> arm64.  As arm64 systems that implement UEFI with real GOP drivers
> >>> become more prevalent, it would be nice to be have these features there
> >>> as well.
> >>
> >> In addition to this, even if a driver doesn't implement a framebuffer
> >> console, or if it does but has an option to disable it, the driver still
> >> needs to know whether the EFI console is using resources on the GPU so
> >> it can avoid clobbering them. For example screen_info provides information
> >> like offset and size of EFI console, using this information driver can
> >> reserve memory used by console and prevent corruption on it.
> >>
> >> I think arm64 should export screen_info.
> >>
> >
> > If there are reasons why KMS or fbdev drivers may need to access the
> > information in screen_info, it should be exported. I don't think that
> > is under debate here.
> >
>
> Hi Ard, thanks for your feedback. If my understanding is correct,
> you are agree to export screen_info. Can you provide guidance on how can
> we proceed here? are you willing to accept this current patch as-is or
> would you like me to re-submit the patch with the additional rationale
> provided?
>

Please (re-)submit it along with the code that actually makes use of it.