Hi Urja, Am Montag, 18. März 2019, 14:47:37 CET schrieb Urja Rannikko: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 5:20 PM Johan Jonker <jbx6244@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > How about RK3066? See/use linux-next. > > Hi and thanks for the notice. The rest of this mail "addressed" for > anyone interested. would be me I guess ;-) . And I was also just looking at the v2 today. DRM tends to be difficult, as I'm not _that_ confident in spotting all things while just looking at the patch, that I want to do a roundtrip of testing on the Rockchip boards I have in my farm. And finding that time is surprisingly difficult, especially as I haven't yet managed to export graphical output - in contrast I can do all non- graphic testing from everywhere with an internet connection. So in any case, sorry about letting this sit for waaaay to long. > I've added the dither bits for RK3066 - it doesnt have the bit for > Allegro/FRC (sel) > which really isnt a problem, but brought up a question for me: > Should the code avoid calling vop_reg_write with unsupported registers/bits? > I assumed a yes, but based on my tests it already does it on RK3288.. > (atleast x/y_mir_en and act_info iirc). > > This only results in a "Warning: not support reg_name" print in drm > debug output, > but to me printing warnings during normal operations (even if they're > only in debug output) seems wrong. Rockchip VOPs have the issue, that it seems soc designers make it a game to move as much registers around as possible between each implementation. So I guess the silently ignoring of non-existent registers was somehow the easiest way of dealing with that gracefully. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
