Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Add EFI framebuffer earlyprintk support

[Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

* Matt Fleming <matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Oct, at 09:57:26AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 10/12/2013 10:49 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >>>> +static void early_efi_write_char(void *dst, char c, int h)
> > > >>>> +{
> > > >>>> +	const u8 *src;
> > > >>>> +	u32 fgcolor = 0xaaaaaa;
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's RGB grey, right? Why not 0xffffff for a very visible white?
> > > >>  
> > > >> The VGA earlyprintk code uses the equivalent grey, AFAIK, which is why I 
> > > >> picked this value.
> > > > 
> > > > The VGA code should be changed to white too I suspect ;-)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > For compatibility with the classical text console we use light grey as 
> > > the default color and a double-stroked font (which was necessary on the 
> > > CGA display since it didn't have enough bandwidth to handle 
> > > single-stroked fonts well).  The problem with changing that to white is 
> > > that you end up with a mismatch between the earlyprintk console and the 
> > > "real" console, *or* we change the behavior of everyone's consoles...
> > 
> > Btw., I have no problem at all with making the early console look separate 
> > and making it clear when we switch to the 'real' console.
> > 
> > earlyprintk is a debug method, and more information can only be good.
> 
> Have we reached a consensus here? I've no strong opinion either way on 
> the colour of the text.

I'd suggest we go white and see whether anyone complains legitimately ...

In any case:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo