Hi Sascha,
Sascha Hauer wrote:
> [...]
> > +
> > +static int framebuffer_init(void)
> > +{
> > + return register_driver(&fb_driver);
> > +}
> > +
> > +device_initcall(framebuffer_init);
> > +
> > +struct device_d *register_framebuffer(struct fb_host *host, void *base,
> > unsigned size) +{
>
> Why are base and size passed to register_framebuffer? The framebuffer
> core should not be interested in this at this point.
Intended for convenience only.
> > + struct device_d *fb_dev;
> > + int rc;
> > +
> > + fb_dev = xzalloc(sizeof(struct device_d));
>
> Why is the device not a member of fb_info (or now fb_host) anymore like
> it used to be? There was no malloc necessary for that.
Glue things from different frameworks together is IMHO a bad idea. But as I
stated in another mail, I will recombine them.
jbe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Juergen Beisert |
Linux Solutions for Science and Industry | Phone: +49-8766-939 228 |
Vertretung Sued/Muenchen, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
