Re: [PATCHv2] Add dynamic video initialization to barebox

From: Belisko Marek <marek.belisko@gmail.com>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Add dynamic video initialization to barebox
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:18:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhJsC+aZYZsjVMkgTNDyQuAG1q+3LJaJVnJusV@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101117084405.GR6017@pengutronix.de>

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 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 ;)
Just checkpatch.pl from kernel or invent some less restrictive tool ;)
in e.g .python?
>
> 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 |
>

marek

-- 
as simple and primitive as possible
-------------------------------------------------
Marek Belisko - OPEN-NANDRA
Freelance Developer

Ruska Nova Ves 219 | Presov, 08005 Slovak Republic
Tel: +421 915 052 184
skype: marekwhite
icq: 290551086
web: http://open-nandra.com

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