> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> >
> > We in handhelds.org codebase have attached patch* to make corgi_bl
> > more suitable for general use. This patch was submitted to Richard
> > (so, more votes needed ;-) ). Otherwise, snippet I pasted is from real
> >
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
We in handhelds.org codebase have attached patch* to make corgi_bl
more suitable for general use. This patch was submitted to Richard
(so, more votes needed ;-) ). Otherwise, snippet I pasted is from real
machine
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:37 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> >
> > We in handhelds.org codebase have attached patch* to make corgi_bl
> > more suitable for general use. This patch was submitted to Richard
> > (so, more votes
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> We in handhelds.org codebase have attached patch* to make corgi_bl
> more suitable for general use. This patch was submitted to Richard
> (so, more votes needed ;-) ). Otherwise, snippet I pasted is from real
> machine
Hello Rodolfo,
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 10:32:04 AM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:26:08PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
k>> Why? It's the same, except that it already exists, generic one (not
>> limited to pxafb), and requires 1 function (too bad that C doesn't
>> support
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:27:09AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
>
> Yes, my point is that you shouldn't need to touch pxafb if you use the
> backlight class. I know pxafb has backlight hooks but they are probably
> going to get removed at some point as they should no longer be needed.
I see.
>
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 09:28 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:59:06AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >
> > Reading through the patch its:
> >
> > 1) Not against any mainline kernel
Sorry, I'd missed a patch entering mainline,
> > 2) Not against a recent kernel
>
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:26:08PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
k> Why? It's the same, except that it already exists, generic one (not
> limited to pxafb), and requires 1 function (too bad that C doesn't
> support lambda's):
Ah, ok.
> I sent a bit of criticism for that too ;-). YMMV, but
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:59:06AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
>
> Reading through the patch its:
>
> 1) Not against any mainline kernel
> 2) Not against a recent kernel
I'm sorry, but the patch applay against the latest kernel. Please, try
it.
> There were a number of backlight class changes
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:59:06AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
Reading through the patch its:
1) Not against any mainline kernel
2) Not against a recent kernel
I'm sorry, but the patch applay against the latest kernel. Please, try
it.
There were a number of backlight class changes just
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:26:08PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
k Why? It's the same, except that it already exists, generic one (not
limited to pxafb), and requires 1 function (too bad that C doesn't
support lambda's):
Ah, ok.
I sent a bit of criticism for that too ;-). YMMV, but kernel
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 09:28 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:59:06AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
Reading through the patch its:
1) Not against any mainline kernel
Sorry, I'd missed a patch entering mainline,
2) Not against a recent kernel
I'm sorry, but
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:27:09AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
Yes, my point is that you shouldn't need to touch pxafb if you use the
backlight class. I know pxafb has backlight hooks but they are probably
going to get removed at some point as they should no longer be needed.
I see.
What
Hello Rodolfo,
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 10:32:04 AM, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:26:08PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
k Why? It's the same, except that it already exists, generic one (not
limited to pxafb), and requires 1 function (too bad that C doesn't
support lambda's):
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
We in handhelds.org codebase have attached patch* to make corgi_bl
more suitable for general use. This patch was submitted to Richard
(so, more votes needed ;-) ). Otherwise, snippet I pasted is from real
machine
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:37 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
We in handhelds.org codebase have attached patch* to make corgi_bl
more suitable for general use. This patch was submitted to Richard
(so, more votes needed ;-)
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 15:53 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> Backlight control support for the PXA fram buffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rodolfo Giometti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
>
> Each platform should define the backlight properties in its own setup
> file in "linux/arch/arm/mach-pxa/" as
Hello Rodolfo,
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 6:12:10 PM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:00:37PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, there's already
>> drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c which provides generic BL support,
>> implemented using notifier callback for
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:00:37PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> On the other hand, there's already
> drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c which provides generic BL support,
> implemented using notifier callback for FB core. Moreover, there's
My patch _uses_ that support.
> corgi_bl.c
Hello Rodolfo,
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 4:53:53 PM, you wrote:
> Backlight control support for the PXA fram buffer.
Here're some comments: backlight support is already confusing
matter, and your patch IMHO makes it even more confusing for PXAFB.
Before even start with details, let's
Backlight control support for the PXA fram buffer.
Signed-off-by: Rodolfo Giometti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Each platform should define the backlight properties in its own setup
file in "linux/arch/arm/mach-pxa/" as follow:
static int pxafb_bl_get_brightness(struct backlight_device *bl_dev)
Backlight control support for the PXA fram buffer.
Signed-off-by: Rodolfo Giometti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Each platform should define the backlight properties in its own setup
file in linux/arch/arm/mach-pxa/ as follow:
static int pxafb_bl_get_brightness(struct backlight_device *bl_dev)
{
Hello Rodolfo,
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 4:53:53 PM, you wrote:
Backlight control support for the PXA fram buffer.
Here're some comments: backlight support is already confusing
matter, and your patch IMHO makes it even more confusing for PXAFB.
Before even start with details, let's
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:00:37PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
On the other hand, there's already
drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c which provides generic BL support,
implemented using notifier callback for FB core. Moreover, there's
My patch _uses_ that support.
corgi_bl.c driver
Hello Rodolfo,
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 6:12:10 PM, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:00:37PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
On the other hand, there's already
drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c which provides generic BL support,
implemented using notifier callback for FB core.
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 15:53 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
Backlight control support for the PXA fram buffer.
Signed-off-by: Rodolfo Giometti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Each platform should define the backlight properties in its own setup
file in linux/arch/arm/mach-pxa/ as follow:
26 matches
Mail list logo
