> -----Original Message----- > From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:38 PM > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 3/3] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: Allow usage of def_vrfb > only for omap2,3 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hiremath, Vaibhav > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu > > > > > > 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." > > > [Senthil] Yes, taken. > > > 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. > [Senthil] As Archit replied in the other thread, HAS_FEATURE of DSS does > not cover VRFB, so this would be dependant on the HAS_FEATURE OMAP once it > is developed. > > > > > > + 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? > [Senthil] The intention of this check is to warn the user if def_vrfb is > given as bootarg by chance on wrong omap devices. That's why the if > condition is framed like this.
Ok, no issues. > If this is considered as an ACK then I could generate v5 with the change > in the description alone. > Yes I think I am ok here, unless Tomi has any comments here. Acked-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <[email protected]> Thanks, Vaibhav > > 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
