> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomi Valkeinen [mailto:tomi.valkei...@nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:32 PM
> To: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-fb...@vger.kernel.org;
> t...@atomide.com; Hiremath, Vaibhav
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] DSS2:Allow FB to build without VRFB
>
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 12:03 +0200, ext Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tomi Valkeinen [mailto:tomi.valkei...@nokia.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:54 PM
> > > To: Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu
> > > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-fb...@vger.kernel.org;
> > > t...@atomide.com; Hiremath, Vaibhav
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] DSS2:Allow FB to build without VRFB
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The patch set makes VRFB optional. What happens if VRFB
> is turned off,
> > > and the user uses VRFB for a framebuffer?
> > [Senthil] This patch keeps VRFB=y for ARCH_OMAP2 and ARCH_OMAP3.
> > User would have got an option to turn it OFF if it had appeared in
> > the menuconfig selections. I did not give that option in
> menuconfig
> > explicitly.
> > ie config OMAP2_VRFB
> > bool <No name given here>
> >
> > Suppose on a build the user deliberately gives
> "CONFIG_OMAP2_VRFB not set",
> > then VRFB functions are made as empty functions by the compiler.
> >
> > This is fine as long as the user does not say omapfb.vrfb=1.
> >
> > But if the user sets omapfb.vrfb=1, then it is a wrong
> usage of the bootargs
> > as he has already deliberately changed the defconfig to say
> "VRFB not set".
> >
> > The result of his experiment: No bootup on the board as the
> vaddr of VRFB
> > is populated nor of the normal RAM buffer.
>
> The kernel should be able to cope with that. While giving wrong boot
> arguments to the kernel causing it to not boot is bad, it could be
> somewhat acceptable. But if the user changes the rotation
> type via sysfs
> file, and the kernel crashes (which is what I fear will happen), it's
> totally unacceptable.
>
> If it's possible to turn VRFB off, then the code should
> handle the case
> where VRFB is not there. Meaning, returning error values or
> somehow else
> failing gracefully, and informing the user of wrong arguments.
>
[Senthil] Yes, I could provide a check in the driver for wrong arguments.
> Tomi
>
>
> N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{��f��{ay�ʇڙ�,j��f���h���z��w���
> ���j:+v���w�j�m��������zZ+�����ݢj"��!�i