On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 1:27 PM Christian Mauderer <l...@c-mauderer.de> wrote:
> On 27/07/2019 22:31, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:26 PM Christian Mauderer <l...@c-mauderer.de > > <mailto:l...@c-mauderer.de>> wrote: > > > > I'm still not entirely convinced what VT does. I tried to remove it > (had > > to remove the vt_fb_attach() / _detach() from fbd.c too) and it still > > works. So why do you need VT? > > > > I removed the VT commit and the app was not able to open the fb device, > > if you can open the device with just removing the VT part from fbd, then > > maybe some other part of the VT commit is necessary to open the device, > > I'll have a look and report and try to see if minimum to no parts of vt > > is needed. > > (We already removed most part from it, just initialization is there). > > That's odd. I can just revert the two VT patches with "git revert <id>", > remove vt_fb_attach() / ..._detach() and I still get an output. > > Maybe I was doing something wrong. In a fresh branch without the VT commit and the vt part removed from fbd. It's working. So I'll totally leave this VT part. and add the vtophys define fbd patch itself so that the define isn't required in the source. > [...]
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
