On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:24:20PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > Sorry, I did not catch up with v1 of the patch set. > > I have a overall comment on the driver. There is many occurrences > of mx23, mx28 etc. throughout the file. IMHO, this is not a good > idea. It may be better to use the IP version to handle the > differences. In this way, if we have another SoC coming later > using the same LCDIF revision as i.MX28. The driver could > immediately fit in without code change, ideally. > > The only problem with version register is that the offset of LCDIF > version register is different on i.MX28 from i.MX23. Can opener inside can. I love it ;) > You still need > cpu_is_mx23 to read the correct version. > > BTW, I would try to use cpu_is_mx23 than cpu_is_mx28, as the 'else' > of cpu_is_mx23 could _possibly_ cover later SoC as well as i.MX28. There is only one cpu_is_mx28 in the driver without else. I can switch MXSFB_MX23 and MXSFB_MX28 to MXSFB_V3 and MXSFB_V4 if you like it better. -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
