Hi,
On 04-08-16 20:12, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
I didn't read the binding document[1], which I should have done.
If simpledrm claims to be compatible with simple-framebuffer I assume it
should support the entire binding doc which
Hi,
On 04-08-16 20:12, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
I didn't read the binding document[1], which I should have done.
If simpledrm claims to be compatible with simple-framebuffer I assume it
should support the entire binding doc which
> firmware framebuffer in early boot until a real driver takes over. It's a
> replacement really for all the various uefi/vesa/whatever fbdev drivers.
> Full reliance on the firmware very much intended.
Most of those have firmware interfaces for things like colour setting and
hardware scrolling.
> firmware framebuffer in early boot until a real driver takes over. It's a
> replacement really for all the various uefi/vesa/whatever fbdev drivers.
> Full reliance on the firmware very much intended.
Most of those have firmware interfaces for things like colour setting and
hardware scrolling.
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>
> I didn't read the binding document[1], which I should have done.
> If simpledrm claims to be compatible with simple-framebuffer I assume it
> should support the entire binding doc which includes clocks, regulators
> and having
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>
> I didn't read the binding document[1], which I should have done.
> If simpledrm claims to be compatible with simple-framebuffer I assume it
> should support the entire binding doc which includes clocks, regulators
> and having
Den 04.08.2016 16:36, skrev Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
This patchset adds the simpledrm driver by David Herrmann based on a
patchset[1] from 2014. That patchset also included patches for kicking
out simpledrm by real drivers. I have stayed
Den 04.08.2016 16:36, skrev Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
This patchset adds the simpledrm driver by David Herrmann based on a
patchset[1] from 2014. That patchset also included patches for kicking
out simpledrm by real drivers. I have stayed
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:59:42PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:44:23PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we
> > > capable of
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:59:42PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:44:23PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we
> > > capable of learning from the
Den 04.08.2016 16:15, skrev Luc Verhaegen:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
framebuffer and producing this node:
framebuffer@1e887000 {
compatible =
Den 04.08.2016 16:15, skrev Luc Verhaegen:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
framebuffer and producing this node:
framebuffer@1e887000 {
compatible =
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:44:23PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we
> > capable of learning from the past?
>
> No we don't. And no-one intends to. I
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:44:23PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we
> > capable of learning from the past?
>
> No we don't. And no-one intends to. I am fully aware of
Hi
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we
> capable of learning from the past?
No we don't. And no-one intends to. I am fully aware of the discussion
that introduced the clock-dependencies to
Hi
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Do we really want to recreate a 400+ email thread again, or are we
> capable of learning from the past?
No we don't. And no-one intends to. I am fully aware of the discussion
that introduced the clock-dependencies to simplefb, and I
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:08:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:15:25PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> > >
> > > I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
> > > framebuffer
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:08:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:15:25PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> > >
> > > I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
> > > framebuffer
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:15:25PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> >
> > I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
> > framebuffer and producing this node:
> >
> > framebuffer@1e887000 {
> >
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:15:25PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> >
> > I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
> > framebuffer and producing this node:
> >
> > framebuffer@1e887000 {
> >
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> This patchset adds the simpledrm driver by David Herrmann based on a
> patchset[1] from 2014. That patchset also included patches for kicking
> out simpledrm by real drivers. I have stayed away from that since it
> involves another
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> This patchset adds the simpledrm driver by David Herrmann based on a
> patchset[1] from 2014. That patchset also included patches for kicking
> out simpledrm by real drivers. I have stayed away from that since it
> involves another
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>
> I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
> framebuffer and producing this node:
>
> framebuffer@1e887000 {
> compatible = "simple-framebuffer";
> reg =
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:03:18PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>
> I have tested simpledrm on a Raspberry Pi B+ with U-boot setting up the
> framebuffer and producing this node:
>
> framebuffer@1e887000 {
> compatible = "simple-framebuffer";
> reg =
This patchset adds the simpledrm driver by David Herrmann based on a
patchset[1] from 2014. That patchset also included patches for kicking
out simpledrm by real drivers. I have stayed away from that since it
involves another subsystem and I would probably be unable to answer any
questions about
This patchset adds the simpledrm driver by David Herrmann based on a
patchset[1] from 2014. That patchset also included patches for kicking
out simpledrm by real drivers. I have stayed away from that since it
involves another subsystem and I would probably be unable to answer any
questions about
26 matches
Mail list logo