From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:39461 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759943Ab3B0PqQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:46:16 -0500 Message-ID: <512E2A1B.6040704@ti.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:45:31 +0200 From: Tomi Valkeinen MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steffen Trumtrar CC: , Dave Airlie , Rob Herring , , , Laurent Pinchart , Thierry Reding , Guennady Liakhovetski , , Tomi Valkeinen , Stephen Warren , Florian Tobias Schandinat , Rob Clark , Leela Krishna Amudala , "Mohammed, Afzal" , Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 2/7] video: add display_timing and videomode References: <1359104515-8907-1-git-send-email-s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de> <1359104515-8907-3-git-send-email-s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de> <51223615.4090709@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <51223615.4090709@iki.fi> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8D4F70B7470859BB845B6389" Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --------------enig8D4F70B7470859BB845B6389 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ping. On 2013-02-18 16:09, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > Hi Steffen, >=20 > On 2013-01-25 11:01, Steffen Trumtrar wrote: >=20 >> +/* VESA display monitor timing parameters */ >> +#define VESA_DMT_HSYNC_LOW BIT(0) >> +#define VESA_DMT_HSYNC_HIGH BIT(1) >> +#define VESA_DMT_VSYNC_LOW BIT(2) >> +#define VESA_DMT_VSYNC_HIGH BIT(3) >> + >> +/* display specific flags */ >> +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_DE_LOW BIT(0) /* data enable flag */ >> +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_DE_HIGH BIT(1) >> +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_PIXDATA_POSEDGE BIT(2) /* drive data on pos. ed= ge */ >> +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_PIXDATA_NEGEDGE BIT(3) /* drive data on neg. ed= ge */ >> +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_INTERLACED BIT(4) >> +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_DOUBLESCAN BIT(5) >=20 > >=20 >> + unsigned int dmt_flags; /* VESA DMT flags */ >> + unsigned int data_flags; /* video data flags */ >=20 > Why did you go for this approach? To be able to represent > true/false/not-specified? >=20 > Would it be simpler to just have "flags" field? What does it give us to= > have those two separately? >=20 > Should the above say raising edge/falling edge instead of positive > edge/negative edge? >=20 > Tomi >=20 --------------enig8D4F70B7470859BB845B6389 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLiobAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71288P/1mHpTBjp+F4XUAKRdQ1KaaX EIvTd8/DjltO8lTrXsIE7aYIfsHIAVNayTYdwRyxUNwMM+rvN1xFwSxVXV3dfJUV yGihyg5zFNwFQoNZ+H0kzGYZyjWa6by2ILu39lGSnKDs+4MZby2QlxLjQXrLIlUe xVqUrxUVLf2+iaHUhrdoi/ZZmE8qK1qzTCI4mmZtyQWkXgop11c+xKgWCoDvPtnd mnwtVOPdUW+TLg2TVfVUHoY87fxk+mNvC7cm8n25LdTwDHEwT8FCyduAWRveJqYb x3vctW0Fz1cqS/0mZ6MFT9OExy9DbyYMVZ4YgNX1jupeNT6V6kiKR9+31vs8M6lP rK54jhudTOe7eB20561VD3vKiT1O5GUn2KPj3tL8P2CxF4xKWy4gvEHHv7s4wvmR rbUARk2E9D4gl0UhW1y20nurTxMw6xGRGaD4PRRXH8F1c6rnho8Qgc1SXlI40OKj 0ta3uN1DFQS8LGCV6BfEffB5LmpuByEjoO/hJ2kjunUSSrdYxHgbq1vRSM6ACe6b 1tME9pfQmM2VCn8x+ECehEsDoawx2yBJvfwk0JDz0sTvZaz92tsrx8ORL/zxuiKc 6jsaZwrmCNnYCs+dSJRSFWnn9AG8nbSnMO+6815TEADHxLTvZew5BNkd95SzLAFi QAg2E8INo4IOxs84Hs9J =9R2k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8D4F70B7470859BB845B6389--