Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/msm: hijack firmware fb's memory
From: Daniel Vetter <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-11 14:42:18
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-arm-msm
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Rob Clark [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Rob Clark [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
+static unsigned long hijack_firmware_fb(struct drm_device *dev) +{ + struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private; + unsigned long size; + int i; + + /* if we have simplefb/efifb, find it's aperture and hijack + * that before we kick out the firmware fb's. + * + * TODO we probably should hold registration_lock + */ + for (i = 0; i < FB_MAX; i++) { + struct fb_info *fb = get_fb_info(i); + + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fb)) + continue; + + if (!fb->apertures->count) + continue; + + /* if we find efifb or simplefb, we are about to + * kick them out, so hijack their memory: + */ + if ((strcmp(fb->fix.id, "EFI VGA") = 0) || + (strcmp(fb->fix.id, "simple") = 0)) { + + priv->vram.paddr = fb->apertures->ranges[0].base; + size = fb->apertures->ranges[0].size; + } + + put_fb_info(fb); + + if (size) + return size; + } + + return 0; +}I think this should be a helper function in at least drm_fb_helper.c, which would then fill in both base&size in a passed-in struct. But yeah this seems a lot better than the old one.Yeah, I guess we could do that.. but probably not in drm_fb_helper.c since that is compile-time optional. Better suggestions about where it should live? If you have fbdev but not DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION you still want to do this, I think. Otherwise we can't completely take over the display setup by firmware (ie. no way to create plane->state->fb).
Hm right, maybe add a drm_fwfb_helper.c or so. If you look at i915_kick_out_vgacon(), that might be another candidate for that file. Putting it into fbdev itself seems like a bad idea, because maintenance pains. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch