On 2013-03-12 17:01, Archit Taneja wrote:
So, what I'm saying is that we should stick to output-dispc_channel. We
iterate through all the panels, and by using output-dispc_channel, we
get the manager for an output, and map that manager to a crtc, and make
sure the number of unique managers we
On 2013-03-12 17:01, Archit Taneja wrote:
> So, what I'm saying is that we should stick to output->dispc_channel. We
> iterate through all the panels, and by using output->dispc_channel, we
> get the manager for an output, and map that manager to a crtc, and make
> sure the number of unique
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:59 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2013-03-12 16:01, Archit Taneja wrote:
>> On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:07 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
>>> So, I don't disagree with you. But I don't quite understand why we could
>>> not use the fixed channels for now? They should work
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:07 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2013-03-12 14:57, Archit Taneja wrote:
>
We could also use the recommended channel way for omapdrm, I can't
figure out what's the better approach at the moment.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I think it'd be safer to use the recommended channel
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 04:08 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2013-03-12 08:07, Archit Taneja wrote:
>> On Monday 11 March 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for
OMAP4. Make
On 2013-03-12 16:01, Archit Taneja wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:07 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> So, I don't disagree with you. But I don't quite understand why we could
>> not use the fixed channels for now? They should work in all the boards
>> we have, right? Or is there something with
On 2013-03-12 14:57, Archit Taneja wrote:
>>> We could also use the recommended channel way for omapdrm, I can't
>>> figure out what's the better approach at the moment.
>>
>> Hmm, I think it'd be safer to use the recommended channel from omapdss
>> for now. The current omapdss code doesn't
On 2013-03-12 08:07, Archit Taneja wrote:
> On Monday 11 March 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
>>> The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for
>>> OMAP4. Make
>>> these changes:
>>>
>>> - DPI isn't supported via the LCD1
On Monday 11 March 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
>> The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for OMAP4. Make
>> these changes:
>>
>> - DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove DPI as a supported
>>output.
>>
On Monday 11 March 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for OMAP4. Make
these changes:
- DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove DPI as a supported
output.
- the TV
On 2013-03-12 08:07, Archit Taneja wrote:
On Monday 11 March 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for
OMAP4. Make
these changes:
- DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 04:08 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 2013-03-12 08:07, Archit Taneja wrote:
On Monday 11 March 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for
OMAP4. Make
these changes:
-
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:07 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 2013-03-12 14:57, Archit Taneja wrote:
We could also use the recommended channel way for omapdrm, I can't
figure out what's the better approach at the moment.
Hmm, I think it'd be safer to use the recommended channel from omapdss
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:59 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 2013-03-12 16:01, Archit Taneja wrote:
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:07 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
So, I don't disagree with you. But I don't quite understand why we could
not use the fixed channels for now? They should work in all the
On 2013-03-12 14:57, Archit Taneja wrote:
We could also use the recommended channel way for omapdrm, I can't
figure out what's the better approach at the moment.
Hmm, I think it'd be safer to use the recommended channel from omapdss
for now. The current omapdss code doesn't really let you
On 2013-03-12 16:01, Archit Taneja wrote:
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 07:07 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
So, I don't disagree with you. But I don't quite understand why we could
not use the fixed channels for now? They should work in all the boards
we have, right? Or is there something with DRM
On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
> The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for OMAP4. Make
> these changes:
>
> - DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove DPI as a supported
> output.
> - the TV manager can suppport DPI, but the omapdss driver
On 2013-03-05 16:17, Archit Taneja wrote:
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for OMAP4. Make
these changes:
- DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove DPI as a supported
output.
- the TV manager can suppport DPI, but the omapdss driver doesn't
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for OMAP4. Make
these changes:
- DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove DPI as a supported
output.
- the TV manager can suppport DPI, but the omapdss driver doesn't support that
yet, we require some muxing at the
The support outputs struct for overlay managers is incorrect for OMAP4. Make
these changes:
- DPI isn't supported via the LCD1 overlay manager, remove DPI as a supported
output.
- the TV manager can suppport DPI, but the omapdss driver doesn't support that
yet, we require some muxing at the
20 matches
Mail list logo
