From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbdev updates. Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:03:54 +0100 Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20020704000354.B4733@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17PtAK-0006Fs-00 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 16:04:05 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from jsimmons@transvirtual.com on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 10:48:41AM -0700 Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: James Simmons Cc: Linux Fbdev development list On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 10:48:41AM -0700, James Simmons wrote: > Here are the latest updates to the framebuffer layer. Please test it outso > I can push it as soon as possible to Linus. The following comments are from a first review of sa1100fb.[ch] changes. 1. It would appear to break sa1100 inverse colourmap stuff. There are LCD panels out there where it is a rather fundamental requirement to write the palette with "inverted" colourmap values. 2. I've no idea why you moved "lccr0" and "lccr3" in sa1100fb.h - this looks like noise to me. 3. I think you replaced "fbi" too many times: +/* Fake monspecs to fill in infonfo structure */ 4. You're also merging in cpufreq changes from my tree in this patch; however I was going to send these to Linus along with the cpufreq submission so no problem. 5. I strongly disagree with your apparant decision to make the cpufreq part of the generic framebuffer core (by apparantly adding the notifier block to the core fb_info structure). Firstly, you've broken sa1100fb.c by not including the relevant definition in fb_info (ok, so cpufreq stuff isn't in Linus' tree yet). Secondly, it isn't something that all framebuffers require; its only required on SoC devices where the hardware designers have been stingy. As such, we should NOT penalise the x86 people by adding random useless garbage to structures that they're never going to use. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek No, I will not fix your computer. http://thinkgeek.com/sf