Hi, On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As I said: I did use 864 initially. That results in missing pixels. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to question this. Go with what works, not with some > old fart's ramblings! No problem. I also wondered why this has been done. If I understood Tomi right, the userspace team feared, that their software would not work with 864, since it was originally written for 854. Anyways I'm pretty sure, that the first 5 pixels are unusable from the users point of view. > > I _think_, that your HW team decided to cover the first and the > > last few pixels of the 864 display with plastic. So technically > > it's a 864 display, but effectively it's 854. > > (*shudder* at "your HW team" ;) ;) > It's plausible, the covers did change slightly for the developer > edition. Assuming the non-developer edition can use the full display it can be "unlocked" with my proposed DT bindings by slight modifications. I guess there exist just a couple of those, so maybe we just ignore it for the mainline kernel? > Good luck with the upstreaming efforts! Thanks. -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
