From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Tobias Schandinat Subject: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [APPLIED] [PATCH] omapfb: Reorder Register_framebuffer call Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:13:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4ABC97B8.80206@gmx.de> References: <1252773249-24444-1-git-send-email-saaguirre@ti.com> <4de7f8a60909220759g63b592eek85a2bca04b264d2e@mail.gmail.com> <20090922162853.GC14890@atomide.com> <4de7f8a60909231003w7bb9fdb9p7cf6fa0b2bc7e3c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4de7f8a60909231003w7bb9fdb9p7cf6fa0b2bc7e3c@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jan Blunck Cc: "Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto" , Tony Lindgren , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Jan Blunck schrieb: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto > wrote: >> From: Tony Lindgren [tony@atomide.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:28 AM >>> * Jan Blunck [090922 07:59]: >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>> This patch has been applied to the linux-omap >>>>> by youw fwiendly patch wobot. >>>>> >>>>> Branch in linux-omap: omap-fixes >>>>> >>>>> Initial commit ID (Likely to change): 9aef1066fb5ca8506068eaab1c552ecca4c85475 >>>>> >>>>> PatchWorks >>>>> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/47089/ >>>>> >>> Added back the original Cc's that were dropped from the linux-omap >>> commit message. >>> >>>> Is it actually safe to do this? The framebuffer can be used directly >>>> after it is registered. In this case it would mean it is used before >>>> it is even fully initialized (set_fb_var(), set_fb_fix(), ... are >>>> being called). >>> Good point, dropping the patch. >> Hmm, ok. I guess i'll rework this patch considering that.. >> >> I ran some framebuffer tests with this patch applied, and they worked fine for me. >> >> The only thing is that i didn't saw Tux on bootup... >> >> Actually, nobody ever gave this kind of feedback, which was the initial idea. >> > > Sorry, I didn't look into it earlier. > > BTW, I actually wonder if it's really necessary to initialize the > mutex in register_framebuffer() or why it couldn't be done during > allocation. This small discussion between Linus and Krzysztof might explain it: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124703449332064&w=2 or to summarize: It is done the way it is done to keep drivers working that use statically declared fb_info. Although I agree, that it would be cleaner the other way around. Regards, Florian Tobias Schandinat