From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rodolfo Giometti Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:58:15 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC] Splash image In-Reply-To: References: <20070718083012.GE4836@enneenne.com> Message-ID: <20070718135815.GF4836@enneenne.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 09:40:28AM -0400, Joey Oravec wrote: > "Rodolfo Giometti" wrote in message > news:20070718083012.GE4836 at enneenne.com... > > I'm planning to review the splash image support and in order to do that > > my next steps should be: > > > > 1) Remove the logo support. > > As long as it's modular, I agreed because the two functions are nearly > identical. It's important to add/remove code to keep the size down. Probably > should test for a pointer to a compressed (gzip) image, uncompress, then > call the bmp_display. I think we should remove it definitely... it's just doubled code. > > 2) Rewrite the lcd_display_bitmap() in order to be more portable > > across several BPP values. > > Keep it modular; have a bitmap_display(addr, x, y) robust to bpp that is > called from an lcd_display_splash_screen(). Account for 24-bit LCDs and > files. The bit-per-pixel data structure was a poor-fit with 24-bit, and I > didn't even try to support colormapped files on a truecolor display. Great > idea because it might save a ton of flash to display an 8bpp image on a > 24bpp display. > > 3. If there's an overall flash savings, it would be nice to support GIF, > PNG, or some other format smaller than a BMP. How complex is the parsing, > and would it be a net savings on flash? I think we should support just one format for two reasons: 1) Supporting just one format keep the code smallest. 2) We have "convert". :) > 4. Account for text overlay on splash screen. There are callbacks for bootup > progress, and it's nice to lcd_printf() the status to some rectangle on the > screen. Even better if it scrolls or clears nicely. > > 5. Document and improve the videolfb ATAG. I hardcode my framebuffer to the > end of RAM, don't tell linux to use that memory, and pass the info to linux. > The display still flickers until you remove the re-initialization, but at > least Linux won't move and therefore clobber the contents of the > framebuffer. I dislike this feature. :) IMHO I think it introduces several problems and complications whose can be avoided just defining a boot logo into Linux... however it could be keep into some consideration. Thanks for your suggestions, Rodolfo -- GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti at enneenne.com Linux Device Driver giometti at gnudd.com Embedded Systems giometti at linux.it UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127