> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiremath, Vaibhav
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----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>
>
[Senthil] Thanks, All of Tomi's comments were incorporated in v4 itself. Will send v5 in a short while.
> 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
