Mailing List Archive: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt

[PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt

radoslaw.pietrzyk at gmail

Mar 13, 2017, 4:20 AM

Post #1 of 7 (17 views)

Allows bpp to be set from dt

Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <radoslaw.pietrzyk@gmail.com>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
index 7c8af29..cb0c10d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
@@ -685,6 +685,8 @@ struct fb_info *fbtft_framebuffer_alloc(struct fbtft_display *display,
/* override driver values? */
if (pdata->fps)
fps = pdata->fps;
+ if (pdata->display.bpp)
+ bpp = pdata->display.bpp;
if (pdata->txbuflen)
txbuflen = pdata->txbuflen;
if (pdata->display.init_sequence)
--
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt [ In reply to ]

radoslaw.pietrzyk at gmail

Mar 13, 2017, 4:20 AM

Post #2 of 7 (17 views)

I have and used with stm32 and fb_ili9341. First patch was shitty, my bad.

2017-03-13 12:00 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Radoslaw Pietrzyk wrote:
>> Allows bpp to be set from dt
>>
>
> Who does this affect in real life? You haven't tested it apparently so
> it's hard to say why you are doing this.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt [ In reply to ]

dan.carpenter at oracle

Mar 13, 2017, 4:20 AM

Post #3 of 7 (17 views)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Radoslaw Pietrzyk wrote:
> Allows bpp to be set from dt
>

Who does this affect in real life? You haven't tested it apparently so
it's hard to say why you are doing this.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt [ In reply to ]

dan.carpenter at oracle

Mar 13, 2017, 4:20 AM

Post #4 of 7 (17 views)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:07:20PM +0100, Rados?aw Pietrzyk wrote:
> I have and used with stm32 and fb_ili9341. First patch was shitty, my bad.
>

Could you resend with a patch description which says why you are doing
this?

"With stm32 and fb_ili9341 the monitor just sits there blinking because
bpp is not set" or something.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt [ In reply to ]

radoslaw.pietrzyk at gmail

Mar 13, 2017, 4:20 AM

Post #5 of 7 (17 views)

Ok I will. I just have thought that in general it might be helpful to
have this possibility as DT is parsed for this option anyway. If you
think it is not needed at all that why to bother parsing DT for this
option in the first place ?

2017-03-13 12:11 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:07:20PM +0100, Rados?aw Pietrzyk wrote:
>> I have and used with stm32 and fb_ili9341. First patch was shitty, my bad.
>>
>
> Could you resend with a patch description which says why you are doing
> this?
>
> "With stm32 and fb_ili9341 the monitor just sits there blinking because
> bpp is not set" or something.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt [ In reply to ]

radoslaw.pietrzyk at gmail

Mar 13, 2017, 6:20 AM

Post #6 of 7 (16 views)

Understood

2017-03-13 12:19 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:16:13PM +0100, Rados?aw Pietrzyk wrote:
>> Ok I will. I just have thought that in general it might be helpful to
>> have this possibility as DT is parsed for this option anyway. If you
>> think it is not needed at all that why to bother parsing DT for this
>> option in the first place ?
>
> I'm not saying it's a wrong patch, I just think the patch description
> doesn't explain why you are doing it or the user visible effects of the
> change.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt [ In reply to ]

dan.carpenter at oracle

Mar 13, 2017, 6:20 AM

Post #7 of 7 (16 views)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:16:13PM +0100, Rados?aw Pietrzyk wrote:
> Ok I will. I just have thought that in general it might be helpful to
> have this possibility as DT is parsed for this option anyway. If you
> think it is not needed at all that why to bother parsing DT for this
> option in the first place ?

I'm not saying it's a wrong patch, I just think the patch description
doesn't explain why you are doing it or the user visible effects of the
change.

regards,
dan carpenter