[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] Increase framebuffer size to todays standards
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:17:06 +0000
- Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:17:31 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
Hi Jan,
On 11/27/18 9:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.11.18 at 10:26, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 11/26/18 4:15 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.11.18 at 17:03, <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am Mon, 26 Nov 2018 03:31:27 -0700
schrieb "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>:
And I think a change like this should (a) address the more general
case rather than just your laptop (or laptops in general) and (b)
actually add some headroom. Hence at the very least I'd see us
go to 4096x3072. WHUXGA would even call for 7680x4800.
So should I resend this patch with higher values, or should I remove
the bounds check entirely? Not sure what it is trying to achieve, the
framebuffer may fail either way if the BIOS provides bogus values.
I have to forward this question: Stefano introduced all five MAX_*
values here when splitting out the LFB code in commit e7cb35e8b1
("xen: introduce a generic framebuffer driver"). I apparently didn't
even notice back then that three of them are entirely unused, and
the two dimension ones had no upper bound before.
Stefano: Why were all of these introduced (there's no explanation
in the description) and what were the values derived from? Will
anything break if we remove them?
FWIW, looking at the logs, this was introduced to cater arm framebuffer
driver. However, we dropped the only driver a few months ago as it was
not maintained. So x86 is the only user of that code today.
Interesting. I assume you mean arm_hdlcd.c. I've looked at its
4.11.0 version, and I'm afraid I still can't see a connection to
the questionable MAX_* values. Whatever we go with is going
to be a backport candidate (as obviously slightly older versions
of Xen would also better work properly with larger monitors),
and hence I'd still need to understand the correlation, perhaps
unless backporting the removal of that driver is also desired.
I would be surprised if someone ever used the HDLCD driver after it was
merged. I am not even sure if it even works.
Furthermore, this driver only targets development platform (i.g Juno) or
the models were pretty much everyone tends to use serial console for Xen.
So I would not worry if you break the support when backporting. I am
also happy to see it completely removed in old Xen version.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|