On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:53AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Juergen Beisert <jbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > Sascha Hauer wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:31:36PM +0200, Juergen Beisert wrote: > >> > Currently barebox uses a fixed videomode setup. Everything is compiled > >> > in. This change adds the possibility to select a videomode according to a > >> > connected display at runtime. The current behaviour is still present if > >> > not otherwise configured. If configured for runtime setup, initialization > >> > of the video hardware will be delayed until the required videomode will > >> > be selected from the shell code. If more than one videomode is supported > >> > by the platform, running the 'devinfo' command on the framebuffer device > >> > shows the supported videomode list. After selecting the videomode, the > >> > output can be enabled. > >> > >> General remarks about this series: > >> > >> - Please do not add code with '#if 0' and activate it later. This shows > >> the series has the wrong order. > > > > This was for review only. If I would change the code in one step, the patch is > > unreadable. > > > >> - Please refrain from basing your internal functions around 'struct > >> device_d'. By doing so we completey lose type safety and at least in > >> case of the mci framework where three different devices are involved > >> this leads to unreadable and error prone code. > > > > But IMHO in the case of the MCI there _are_ three devices! > > - The one that knows how to handle disk drives > > - The one that knows what a SD card is > > - the one that knows how to transfer data from an to an attached device. > > > > Why this is unreadable or error prone? If you combine all these different > > functions into one I would say: Yes, the result is unreadable and error > > prone. And if you would say for a bootloader this separate approach is > > over-engineered, I would say: Maybe. > > > >> The framebuffer code should be based around struct fb_info. > > > > I do not like this idea, but okay. In the next series I will do it in this > > way. > > > >> - Please keep the line lengths within sensible limits. > > > > Sorry, I checked it the last time, but some lines are slipped through. > Couldn't be included in barebox scripts also checkpatch.pl script from kernel? > Would be nice to have proper patches with kernel coding style. Sure, send a patch ;) Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
