> 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.
Come on, it's obvious the proper name for it is `fafb`, for Firmware Agnostic Frame Buffer.
