On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:28PM +0200, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 3:36 PM > > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav > > Cc: Grazvydas Ignotas; linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Valkeinen Tomi (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: add support for FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC > > > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 08:08:14AM +0200, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > > > > @@ -648,6 +649,17 @@ int omapfb_ioctl(struct fb_info *fbi, unsigned int > > cmd, > > > > unsigned long arg) > > > > r = -EFAULT; > > > > break; > > > > > > > > + case FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC: > > > > + if (get_user(p.crt, (__u32 __user *)arg)) { > > > > + r = -EFAULT; > > > > + break; > > > > + } > > > > + if (p.crt != 0) { > > > > + r = -ENODEV; > > > > + break; > > > > + } > > > > + /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > > + > > > > case OMAPFB_WAITFORVSYNC: > > > [Hiremath, Vaibhav] I don't see any reason why we should still keep old > > custom IOCTL support here. > > > > It can already be used so it should not be removed. > > > [Hiremath, Vaibhav] I am not in favor of this, if we have standard interface then we should encourage people to use it. Don't you think we will have different interface for OMAP and different for non-omap device. What anyone thinks that apps should do doesn't matter. Removing the ioctl will break the ABI and that is not an acceptable thing to do in kernel development usually. -- Ville Syrjälä -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
