Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76384-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 12:08:11 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
To: Daniel van Vugt <daniel.van.vugt@canonical.com>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, 
	Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Hellstr=C3=B6m?= <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] fbcon: Defer console takeover for splash screens
 to first switch
Message-ID: <rwifwv74dhd5dipnoi2txnecsydvfnrbog2ntk76hplf3tpdzt@5d4goejupypn>
References: <bb8d631d-9f6c-48e8-a504-8931ee21014d@amd.com>
 <20240219090239.22568-1-daniel.van.vugt@canonical.com>
 <20240219090239.22568-2-daniel.van.vugt@canonical.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pvd2vhdd32pzrrsm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240219090239.22568-2-daniel.van.vugt@canonical.com>


--pvd2vhdd32pzrrsm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Daniel,

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 05:02:34PM +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> Until now, deferred console takeover only meant defer until there is
> output. But that risks stepping on the toes of userspace splash screens
> as console messages may appear before the splash screen.
>=20
> This becomes more likely the later the splash screen starts, but even
> systems whose splash exists in initrd may not be not immune because they
> still rely on racing against all possible kernel messages that might
> trigger the fbcon takeover. And those kernel messages are hardware
> dependent so what boots silently on one machine may not be so quiet on
> the next. We also want to shield users from seeing warnings about their
> hardware/firmware that they don't always have the power to fix themselves,
> and may not be deemed worthy of fixing by the vendor.
>=20
> So now we check the command line for the expectation of userspace splash
> (CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE_DEFERRED_TAKEOVER_CONDITION) and if present
> then defer fbcon's takeover until the first console switch. In the case
> of Plymouth, its value would typically be "splash". This keeps the boot
> experience clean and silent so long as the command line requests so.
>=20
> Closes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1970069
> Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel van Vugt <daniel.van.vugt@canonical.com>

It's not clear to me why we should want to make it an option? If one
strategy is better than the other, and I guess the new one is if you
consider it fixes a bug and bothered to submit it upstream, why not just
get rid of the old one entirely?

I guess my question is: why do we want the choice, and what are the
tradeoff each strategy brings?

Maxime

--pvd2vhdd32pzrrsm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCZdcrGgAKCRDj7w1vZxhR
xaWTAQCGNckiumaOI6zifOp2sbK3AemQ51LpaqAihgsRhuAKzgD8CyvObKZWGIBl
E7dbvsR5McDa3GsUg5v5r9ThU+B/QA8=
=1pEj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pvd2vhdd32pzrrsm--