Re: [PATCHv2] Add dynamic video initialization to barebox

From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Belisko Marek <marek.belisko@gmail.com>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Add dynamic video initialization to barebox
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:44:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101117084405.GR6017@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=QpyH4imNRBkwQekdq3177E5yJiAFAM5jMH=jb@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:53AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Juergen Beisert <jbe@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> >
> > Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:31:36PM +0200, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> >> > Currently barebox uses a fixed videomode setup. Everything is compiled
> >> > in. This change adds the possibility to select a videomode according to a
> >> > connected display at runtime. The current behaviour is still present if
> >> > not otherwise configured. If configured for runtime setup, initialization
> >> > of the video hardware will be delayed until the required videomode will
> >> > be selected from the shell code. If more than one videomode is supported
> >> > by the platform, running the 'devinfo' command on the framebuffer device
> >> > shows the supported videomode list. After selecting the videomode, the
> >> > output can be enabled.
> >>
> >> General remarks about this series:
> >>
> >> - Please do not add code with '#if 0' and activate it later. This shows
> >>   the series has the wrong order.
> >
> > This was for review only. If I would change the code in one step, the patch is
> > unreadable.
> >
> >> - Please refrain from basing your internal functions around 'struct
> >>   device_d'. By doing so we completey lose type safety and at least in
> >>   case of the mci framework where three different devices are involved
> >>   this leads to unreadable and error prone code.
> >
> > But IMHO in the case of the MCI there _are_ three devices!
> >  - The one that knows how to handle disk drives
> >  - The one that knows what a SD card is
> >  - the one that knows how to transfer data from an to an attached device.
> >
> > Why this is unreadable or error prone? If you combine all these different
> > functions into one I would say: Yes, the result is unreadable and error
> > prone. And if you would say for a bootloader this separate approach is
> > over-engineered, I would say: Maybe.
> >
> >>   The framebuffer code should be based around struct fb_info.
> >
> > I do not like this idea, but okay. In the next series I will do it in this
> > way.
> >
> >> - Please keep the line lengths within sensible limits.
> >
> > Sorry, I checked it the last time, but some lines are slipped through.
> Couldn't be included in barebox scripts also checkpatch.pl script from kernel?
> Would be nice to have proper patches with kernel coding style.

Sure, send a patch ;)

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox