Hi Ivan,
Am 19.12.23 um 09:51 schrieb Ivan T. Ivanov:
On 12-18 23:32, Stefan Wahren wrote:
static const struct udevice_id bcm2835_video_ids[] = {
- { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-hdmi" },
- { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-hdmi0" },
- { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2708-fb" },
- { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-hdmi", .data = VIDEO_BPP32},
- { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-hdmi0", .data = VIDEO_BPP32},
- { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2708-fb", .data = VIDEO_BPP16 },
this change looks wrong to me. Before we used VIDEO_BPP32 for brcm,bcm2708-fb. I think it's hard to explain why we should downgrade the other boards. I would expect some brcm,bcm2712 compatible at least this needs an explanation in the commit message.
If you are confident that this semi device was working before with BPP32 I will try to find better way to handle this. Do you remember which RPi version was this?
as said before i'm don't have much experience with U-Boot, so i'm not confident. But downgrading the bpp value for an existing setting only to make RPi 5 work, isn't a good approach. It's a hack.
A quick search for the compatible revealed this [1], so it looks like a fallback which applies to all Raspberry Pi boards with a firmware provided DTB.
In case all of them uses 16 bit, i'm fine with this change but then the commit log should mention this. I think these are points which needs to be discussed with the Raspberry Pi guys.
Best regards
[1] - https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-July/333476.html
Thanks, Ivan