On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:15:41PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:34, Rabin Vincent <rabin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure out the best way to implement fb_setcolreg() for
> > FB_VISUAL_TRUECOLOR.
>
> FB_VISUAL_TRUECOLOR implies the colormap is read-only.
> Perhaps you meant FB_VISUAL_DIRECTCOLOR?
I was referring to the pseudo palette usage for FB_VISUAL_TRUECOLOR, which is
where most of the drivers use chan_to_field(), for example in s3c2410fb.c:
switch (info->fix.visual) {
case FB_VISUAL_TRUECOLOR:
/* true-colour, use pseudo-palette */
if (regno < 16) {
u32 *pal = info->pseudo_palette;
val = chan_to_field(red, &info->var.red);
>
> > 14 or so drivers copy/paste the CNVT_TOHW from skeletonfb.c:
> >
> > #define CNVT_TOHW(val,width) ((((val)<<(width))+0x7FFF-(val))>>16)
> > ...
> > red = CNVT_TOHW(red, info->var.red.length);
> >
> > Another 18 or so drivers copy/paste a chan_to_field() function which has
> > a straightforward shift:
> >
> > static inline u_int chan_to_field(u_int chan, struct fb_bitfield *bf)
> > {
> > chan &= 0xffff;
> > chan >>= 16 - bf->length;
> > return chan << bf->offset;
> > }
> > ...
> > val = chan_to_field(red, &info->var.red);
> >
> > Both methods return similar values, except that with CNVT_TOHW() the
> > extreme values seem to have a smaller range than the other values, while
> > with the chan_to_field() shift all the values have an equal range.
> >
> > What's the reason behind choosing one over the other? Could/should a
> > common function be provided for all the drivers to use?
>
> The idea is to use the full dynamic range of the 16-bit values. I.e. 'all ones'
> in the hardware-specific value should map to 'all ones' in the 16-bit expanded
> value. So the macros are preferred.
I'm not sure I follow. In the pseudo palette, where the bf->length is less
than 16, both CNVT_TOHW() and the plain shift return the same values for the
all-ones case.
--
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
