> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:38 PM
> To: Hiremath, Vaibhav; tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxx; linux-
> omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 3/3] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: Allow usage of def_vrfb
> only for omap2,3
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hiremath, Vaibhav
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> > >
> > > 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."
> >
> [Senthil] Yes, taken.
> > > 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.
> [Senthil] As Archit replied in the other thread, HAS_FEATURE of DSS does
> not cover VRFB, so this would be dependant on the HAS_FEATURE OMAP once it
> is developed.
>
> >
> > > + 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?
> [Senthil] The intention of this check is to warn the user if def_vrfb is
> given as bootarg by chance on wrong omap devices. That's why the if
> condition is framed like this.
Ok, no issues.
> If this is considered as an ACK then I could generate v5 with the change
> in the description alone.
>
Yes I think I am ok here, unless Tomi has any comments here.
Acked-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx>
Thanks,
Vaibhav
> > 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
