On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 11:27 +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:44 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote: > > This series prepares the low level DISPC driver(dispc.c) to configure writeback > > registers. The aim is to reuse most of the code as most of its registers are > > like overlay or manager registers, and are configured in the same way in most > > cases. The first few patches rename dispc_ovl_* functions to dispc_plane_* > > I'm not sure if the renaming causes more confusion than clarity... It > kinda creates a mishmash of ovl/plane names, and the term "plane" > doesn't really sound like it's a base for both overlays and wb. Could we > consider the wb as a special case, and keep the ovl name for most of the > things and have "wb" used for wb specific things? And while WB is a combination of overlays and ovl managers, do you think it'd be difficult to consider WB as a special, extended overlay? So just call it an overlay, and consider it as an overlay with special features, at least inside dispc.c. We probably need to have it as a totally different entity from user's point of view (i.e. the list of overlays wouldn't return WB, etc). Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
