> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiremath, Vaibhav > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu > > > > > > > > > -----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]> > [Senthil] Thanks, All of Tomi's comments were incorporated in v4 itself. Will send v5 in a short while. > 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
