> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grazvydas Ignotas [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 2:25 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Tomi Valkeinen; Hiremath, Vaibhav; Grazvydas
> Ignotas
> Subject: [PATCH] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: add support for FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC
> 
> FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC is a stardard ioctl for waiting vsync, already
> used by some userspace, so add it as an alias for OMAPFB_WAITFORVSYNC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Grazvydas Ignotas <[email protected]>
> ---
> Tomi,
> 
> I know I already sent this earlier, but as now FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC is a
> standard ioctl, so why don't we support it? I know you might not like
> that omapfb_ioctl will have one standard ioctl handler between all OMAP
> specific ones, but that's something plenty of other drivers do.
> 
[Hiremath, Vaibhav] We should always use standard interfaces wherever possible 
and I think Tomi will also be aligned on this.

>  drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-ioctl.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-ioctl.c
> b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-ioctl.c
> index 9c73618..32fab5a 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-ioctl.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-ioctl.c
> @@ -490,6 +490,7 @@ int omapfb_ioctl(struct fb_info *fbi, unsigned int cmd,
> unsigned long arg)
>               struct omapfb_vram_info         vram_info;
>               struct omapfb_tearsync_info     tearsync_info;
>               struct omapfb_display_info      display_info;
> +             u32                             crt;
>       } p;
> 
>       int r = 0;
> @@ -648,6 +649,17 @@ int omapfb_ioctl(struct fb_info *fbi, unsigned int cmd,
> unsigned long arg)
>                       r = -EFAULT;
>               break;
> 
> +     case FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC:
> +             if (get_user(p.crt, (__u32 __user *)arg)) {
> +                     r = -EFAULT;
> +                     break;
> +             }
> +             if (p.crt != 0) {
> +                     r = -ENODEV;
> +                     break;
> +             }
> +             /* FALLTHROUGH */
> +
>       case OMAPFB_WAITFORVSYNC:
[Hiremath, Vaibhav] I don't see any reason why we should still keep old custom 
IOCTL support here. 

Thanks,
Vaibhav
>               DBG("ioctl WAITFORVSYNC\n");
>               if (!display) {
> --
> 1.6.3.3

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to