On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Hi Grant, > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > However, I am concerned about handover. I've lost track over the entire > > thread on whether the handover mechanism has been resolved, and I would > > really like to have a proposed solution to this documented in the > > binding. The fact that there is nothing tying the simple framebuffer to > > the actual hardware backing the framebuffer is concerning. It means the > > kernel needs to guess which graphics device is associated with the > > framebuffer. > > We did discuss handover in Düsseldorf, and concluded that the simplefb's > regs property can be used for this. > > While on a modern system with unified memory this association cannot be > derived in a generic way, a device-specific driver for the graphics hardware > can if the regs property of the simplefb node matches the address the CRTC > engine is configured for.
??? Right, I'm going to be blunt here: That's just dumb. All the capability needed is there in the DT to associate a simple FB to a display controller, and the solution chosen is to use a heuristic? The association needs to be explicit. I strongly prefer putting the simple FB directly into the display controller node, but I would consider phandle linkage also. g. > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- > ge...@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like > that. > -- Linus Torvalds -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.