Hi Sascha, On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:46:28AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Andre Heider wrote: > > This is v2 of my patch set posted on 10/24. > > It adds framebuffer support for the RPi and provides an additional config > > knob to set up the kernel's simplefb driver. The active barebox framebuffer > > is basis for that feature, so that other platforms can make use of it. > > > > This simplefb option depends on the bcm2835 fb driver since drivers need > > to be aware of simplefb: framebuffers need to stay configured and cannot be > > teared down. > > > > The RPi case is rather simple in this regard. The allocated framebuffer lies > > within the memory range of the VideoCore of the ARM/VC memory split. Hence, > > there is no memory range that needs to be reserved as far as the ARM side > > of things is concerned. > > This likely needs to be added once other fb driver want to use simplefb. > > > > Changes since v1: > > * renamed "pitch" to "line_length" to match the kernel > > * the bcm2835 framebuffer driver is now standalone > > * configuring simplefb for the kernel is based on the active barebox > > framebuffer > > I applied this series without the simplefb patch. thanks! > > For the simplefb I'd like to use the following patch instead. It's your > patch with some adjustments: > > - add a register_simplefb device parameter to make it configurable > whether a simplefb node should be created or not. > - register the OF fixup in register_framebuffer(). This way we always > have a simplefb node once a framebuffer is registered without getting > spurious warnings when there is no framebuffer present. > - check if the framebuffer is actually enabled. If it's not, we > shouldn't register a simplefb node. > > Are you fine with this and if yes, could you give the patch a test? > It depends on the add-context-pointer-to-of_register_fixup patch I just > posted. Just try the current -next branch, it should contain all you > need for testing. Neat, that looks nicer, so no objection here ;) And yes, it works if I set fb0.enable=1 and fb0.register_simplefb=1, both are 0 per default. Now I wonder who/where those are supposed to get set? Is that a job for the runtime environment? I didn't really care about the enabled parameter until now, there isn't anything to do in the fb_enable callback for this fb driver and `splash` doesn't seem to care either. Regards, Andre _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
