On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:18:36AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote: > 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! > >> > - 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 ;) > Just checkpatch.pl from kernel or invent some less restrictive tool ;) > in e.g .python? checkpatch.pl should be fine. I won't require a patch to be checkpatch clean, but sometimes it's nice to be able to tell people 'go fix these checkpatch warnings' when there are obvious style problems in it. 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
