On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 13:32 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:10 AM Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of
> > > the Change scope or not. The paragraph about the `uvesafb` driver seems
> > > kind of aspirational and doesn't seem to commit to anything. The
> > > "Benefit to Fedora" section states "Verified modern
supported paths for
> > > cases currently handled by vesa/fbdev", but I'm not 100% clear
what is
> > > meant by that.
> >
> > IMHO, it is not acceptable to remove the vesa driver without having
> > something like uvesafb to replace it.
>
> I like how I'm being told _not_ to find out where the remaining bugs
> are in our native drivers, and instead preserve something awful for
> eternity.
Turns out the support story is less bad than I thought, the simpledrm
change was more powerful than I knew. I've updated the change again
but the short story is vga= on kcmdline will give you just as good of
support as UEFI framebuffer.
If we can do the "make basic graphics mode do vga=ask and then write
the chosen config to the installed system bootloader" thing, then that
sounds sufficient to me. That will require co-ordination with the
anaconda team, though (and I think with bcl to get the necessary
changes into the image bootloader configurations).
Thanks for looking into it!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net