Hi, On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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! >> > Â- The one that knows how to handle disk drives >> > Â- The one that knows what a SD card is >> > Â- 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 ;) Just checkpatch.pl from kernel or invent some less restrictive tool ;) in e.g .python? > > Sascha > > > -- > Pengutronix e.K.              |               | > Industrial Linux Solutions         | http://www.pengutronix.de/ Â| > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0  Â| > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686      | Fax:  +49-5121-206917-5555 | > marek -- as simple and primitive as possible ------------------------------------------------- Marek Belisko - OPEN-NANDRA Freelance Developer Ruska Nova Ves 219 | Presov, 08005 Slovak Republic Tel: +421 915 052 184 skype: marekwhite icq: 290551086 web: http://open-nandra.com _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
