Hi Pali,
On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 09:01, Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
Hello!
On Sunday 23 January 2022 08:54:24 Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Pali,
On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 07:57, Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
On Sunday 23 January 2022 07:36:22 Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Pali,
On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 07:08, Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
- Maemo
On Sunday 23 January 2022 07:04:03 Simon Glass wrote:
Drop this code which uses a header that is about to be deleted.
And what / where is the replacement?
This is DM_VIDEO. There are quite a few example drivers in drivers/video - perhaps the mxsfb.c one is a reasonable example. See the top of video_uclass.c for how frame-buffer allocation works.
I have already WIP patches for usage of video-uclass.c but because reviewing of N900 patches is slow, I have not sent them yet.
Who is reviewing them?
Lokesh is reviewing omap3 and n900 patches.
If you send the patches I can review them and we can get them applied for this release.
I have already wrote in other thread I do not want to send too many patches if I see that review process is slow. And also because I totally lost the track what was send, what was not and what depends on what. And I do not want to work on too many things in paralel if I see that it took half year or more to make patches in acceptable form.
So could you please do NOT remove N900 support? I would really appreciative for reviewing pending patches instead of sending patches with board removal.
This is not a board removal, just dropping a feature.
... feature which is essential and without which board is unusable.
Note that there is some issue with video_post_bind(), it throws false-positive error "Video device '%s' cannot allocate frame buffer memory" with "return -ENOSPC". If I remove that "return -ENOSPC" it is working fine.
Do you need U-Boot to allocate the frame buffer. If so, this is likely because your driver is not bound before relocation. See the comment around that message in the code.
Regards, Simon
I did not spend too much time for investigation. I just saw that removing that comment and returning makes it fully working.
Sure, but it is indicating a bug, so needs to be figured out. If you read the top of video-uclass.c you can probably see what is going on.
Regards, Simon