> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:39 PM
> To: tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxx; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-
> omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: Allow usage of def_vrfb only
> for omap2,3
>
> From: Senthilvadivu Guruswamy <svadivu@xxxxxx>
>
> Force def_vrfb to 0 for non omap2, omap3 devices
>
Can we reword the commit description to something like,
"For Non-VRFB devices/platforms (omap2, omap3 family) force it to the DMA based rotation."
> Signed-off-by: Senthilvadivu Guruswamy <svadivu@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c
> b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c
> index 4b4506d..0f79db8 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb-main.c
> @@ -2128,6 +2128,16 @@ static int omapfb_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> goto err0;
> }
>
> + /* TODO : Replace cpu check with omap_has_vrfb once HAS_FEATURE
> + * available for OMAP2 and OMAP3
> + */
This patch may conflict with Archit HAS_FEATURE patch sets. And if I understand correctly it has almost making it to DSS2 tree.
> + if (def_vrfb && (!cpu_is_omap24xx()) && (!cpu_is_omap34xx())) {
[Hiremath, Vaibhav] Any way we are forcing to DMA based rotation, then why to check for def_vrfb in the above condition. It can be something
if (!cpu_is_omap24xx() && !cpu_is_omap34xx()) {
def_vrfb = 0;
...
}
Does it make sense to you?
Thanks,
Vaibhav
> + def_vrfb = 0;
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "VRFB is not in this device,"
> + "using DMA for rotation\n");
> + }
> +
> +
> mutex_init(&fbdev->mtx);
>
> fbdev->dev = &pdev->dev;
> --
> 1.6.3.3
--
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
