From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix efifb initialisation when the only GOP device implements ConOut. Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:15:23 +0000 Message-ID: <1357578923.8203.72.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1357431222.9270.73.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <1357524250.9270.86.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1357524250.9270.86.camel-Fexsq3y4057IgHVZqg5X0TlWvGAXklZc@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Woodhouse Cc: x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Matthew Garrett , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-efi List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 02:04 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:13 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > When booting under OVMF we have precisely one GOP device, and it > > implements the ConOut protocol. > > > > We break out of the loop when we look at it... and then promptly abort > > because 'first_gop' never gets set. > > Hmmm. I've just fixed OVMF so that when qemu is invoked with the > '-kernel' argument, it uses the EFI handover protocol. And now graphics > is broken on kernels *without* this patch. I can't even initialise the > graphics info in OVMF (as it does for non-EFI handover) because the > kernel helpfully zeroes it all out before failing to set it up > correctly. > > Does it make sense to bump the boot protocol to 2.12 to indicate that > this bug is fixed, and then let things like OVMF use the EFI handover > protocol only for boot protocol >= 2.12? Or is there a better way...? Bumping the boot protocol seems like a sensible idea. Peter, any objection to that?