Hi Tomi, On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 13:10:43 EEST Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 25/04/18 13:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 12:33:53 EEST Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> On 25/04/18 12:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> Could we trim down omapfb to remove support for the devices supported by > >>> omapdrm ? > >> > >> I was thinking about just that. But, of course, it's not quite > >> straightforward either. > >> > >> We've got DSI manual update functionality in OMAP3-OMAP5 SoCs, which > >> covers a lot of devices. > > > > Sebastian is working on getting that feature in omapdrm, isn't he ? > > Yes, and I keep pushing it forward because of the restructuring you're > doing =) (feel free to comment on that thread). But agreed, it's getting > better. When we have manual update support, I think the biggest missing > feature is then in omapdrm. > > >> And VRFB on OMAP2/3. > > > > And that's something I'd really like to have in omapdrm too. > > Considering how much headache TILER has given, I'm not exactly looking > forward to it ;). > > If we get manual update and VRFB, I think we are more or less covered on > the supported HW features. It'll still break userspace apps which use > omapfb, though. Unless we also port the omapfb specific IOCTLs and the > sysfs files, which I believe we should not. I agree with you, we shouldn't. We'll need a grace period before removing omapfb, if we ever do so. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
