Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-08-11 Thread Bjorn Helgaas
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 03:56:20PM +, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > > Having practically zero background in gfx development (either kernel or > > Xorg), I think the problem is that vga_default_device() / > > vga_set_default_device(), which -- apparently -- "boot_vga" is based > > upon, come from "d

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-26 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 07/25/17 17:56, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > Hi Laszlo > > [...] > >> >> Having practically zero background in gfx development (either kernel or >> Xorg), I think the problem is that vga_default_device() / >> vga_set_default_device(), which -- apparently -- "boot_vga" is based >> upon, come from

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-25 Thread Daniel Axtens
Hi Laszlo, Thanks for your input! >> Are there other graphical applications we care about (other than Xorg) >> that would need to be patched? I'm happy to do the Xorg patch, but I >> don't know if anything other than Xorg keys off the boot_vga file. >> >> I'm not fundamentally opposed to this ap

RE: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-25 Thread Gabriele Paoloni
Hi Laszlo [...] > > Having practically zero background in gfx development (either kernel or > Xorg), I think the problem is that vga_default_device() / > vga_set_default_device(), which -- apparently -- "boot_vga" is based > upon, come from "drivers/gpu/vga/vgaarb.c". Namely, the concept of > "p

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-25 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 07/24/17 01:15, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi Ard, > >> But the fact remains that we are going about this the wrong way. >> Whether a graphics card decodes legacy VGA ranges or not has *nothing* >> to do with whether or not it is in fact the primary device on a >> non-x86 system, and so I still thi

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-23 Thread Daniel Axtens
Hi Ard, > But the fact remains that we are going about this the wrong way. > Whether a graphics card decodes legacy VGA ranges or not has *nothing* > to do with whether or not it is in fact the primary device on a > non-x86 system, and so I still think the VGA arbiter should be omitted > entirely

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-21 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
(+ Hans) On 21 July 2017 at 00:52, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi Ard, > >> (+ Laszlo) >> >> On 19 July 2017 at 02:28, Daniel Axtens wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Previously I posted a patch that provided a quirk for a hibmc card >>> behind a particular Huawei bridge that allowed it to be marked as the

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-20 Thread Daniel Axtens
Hi Ard, > (+ Laszlo) > > On 19 July 2017 at 02:28, Daniel Axtens wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Previously I posted a patch that provided a quirk for a hibmc card >> behind a particular Huawei bridge that allowed it to be marked as the >> default device in the VGA arbiter.[0] This lead to some discussio

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-19 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
(+ Laszlo) On 19 July 2017 at 02:28, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi all, > > Previously I posted a patch that provided a quirk for a hibmc card > behind a particular Huawei bridge that allowed it to be marked as the > default device in the VGA arbiter.[0] This lead to some discussion.[1] > It was broa

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow non-legacy cards to be vgaarb default

2017-07-18 Thread Daniel Axtens
Apologies everyone - this got mixed in with another patch set. I'll do a v2 that isn't completely broken and confusing. Again, my apologies for the noise. Regards, Daniel Daniel Axtens writes: > Hi all, > > Previously I posted a patch that provided a quirk for a hibmc card > behind a particula