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

2013-10-16 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct, at 09:57:26AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * H. Peter Anvin 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; > > > >>>

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

2013-10-16 Thread Matt Fleming
On Mon, 14 Oct, at 09:57:26AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * H. Peter Anvin 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 = 0xaa; > > >>> >

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

2013-10-14 Thread Ingo Molnar
* H. Peter Anvin 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 = 0xaa; > >>> > >>> That's RGB grey, right? Why not 0xff for a very visible wh

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

2013-10-13 Thread H. Peter Anvin
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 = 0xaa; >>> >>> That's RGB grey, right? Why not 0xff for a very visible white? >> >> The VGA earlyprintk code uses the equivale

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

2013-10-12 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct, at 07:28:44PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Btw., could we perhaps remap the whole framebuffer at init time, or is it > > too large? If early_ioremap() fails for whatever reason then that will > > emit a WARN_ON(), which will recurse in a fairly nasty way ...

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

2013-10-11 Thread Matt Fleming
On Thu, 10 Oct, at 07:28:44PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Btw., could we perhaps remap the whole framebuffer at init time, or is it > too large? If early_ioremap() fails for whatever reason then that will > emit a WARN_ON(), which will recurse in a fairly nasty way ... The framebuffer memory will be

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

2013-10-11 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > INTN > GetPixelElementSize ( > IN EFI_PIXEL_BITMASK *PixelBits > ) > { > INTN HighestPixel = -1; > INTN BluePixel; > INTN RedPixel; > INTN GreenPixel; > INTN RsvdPixel; > BluePixel = FindHighestSe

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

2013-10-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 07:45:21PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Also, the main question would be, what is the typical value for > > si->lfb_depth. 32 on almost all EFI systems? All around the map? Depends > > on what graphics state the EFI bootloader passes us? >

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

2013-10-10 Thread Peter Jones
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 07:45:21PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 07:28:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > Is a non-32-bit framebuffer a possibility? If yes then it might be nice > > > to > > > emit an informative printk() here, so tha

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

2013-10-10 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 07:45:21PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Also, the main question would be, what is the typical value for > si->lfb_depth. 32 on almost all EFI systems? All around the map? Depends > on what graphics state the EFI bootloader passes us? Microsoft require that it be 32, so in

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

2013-10-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Peter Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 07:28:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Is a non-32-bit framebuffer a possibility? If yes then it might be nice to > > emit an informative printk() here, so that users who try to enable EFI > > early-printk can at least see why it's not work

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

2013-10-10 Thread Peter Jones
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 07:28:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Is a non-32-bit framebuffer a possibility? If yes then it might be nice to > emit an informative printk() here, so that users who try to enable EFI > early-printk can at least see why it's not working. (Assuming they get to > look

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

2013-10-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Matt Fleming wrote: > From: Matt Fleming > > It's incredibly difficult to diagnose early EFI boot issues without > special hardware because earlyprintk=vga doesn't work on EFI systems. > > Add support for writing to the EFI framebuffer, via earlyprintk=efi, > which will actually give users