> -----Original Message----- > From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:39 PM > To: [email protected]; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux- > [email protected] > Cc: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu > Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: Allow usage of def_vrfb only > for omap2,3 > > From: Senthilvadivu Guruswamy <[email protected]> > > Force def_vrfb to 0 for non omap2, omap3 devices >
Can we reword the commit description to something like, "For Non-VRFB devices/platforms (omap2, omap3 family) force it to the DMA based rotation." > Signed-off-by: Senthilvadivu Guruswamy <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c > b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c > index 4b4506d..0f79db8 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c > +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c > @@ -2128,6 +2128,16 @@ static int omapfb_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > goto err0; > } > > + /* TODO : Replace cpu check with omap_has_vrfb once HAS_FEATURE > + * available for OMAP2 and OMAP3 > + */ This patch may conflict with Archit HAS_FEATURE patch sets. And if I understand correctly it has almost making it to DSS2 tree. > + if (def_vrfb && (!cpu_is_omap24xx()) && (!cpu_is_omap34xx())) { [Hiremath, Vaibhav] Any way we are forcing to DMA based rotation, then why to check for def_vrfb in the above condition. It can be something if (!cpu_is_omap24xx() && !cpu_is_omap34xx()) { def_vrfb = 0; ... } Does it make sense to you? Thanks, Vaibhav > + def_vrfb = 0; > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "VRFB is not in this device," > + "using DMA for rotation\n"); > + } > + > + > mutex_init(&fbdev->mtx); > > fbdev->dev = &pdev->dev; > -- > 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
