> ...
>>> Sorry but I'd like to say that this cannot be used commonly. Shouldn't you
>>> really consider Linux framebuffer or other subsystems? The above dtsi file
>>> is specific to DRM subsystem. And I think the dtsi file has no any
>>> dependency on certain subsystem so board dtsi f
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:25:48PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:57:32PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> > I am against a super node which contains lcd and dcon/ire nodes. You can
>> > enable those devices on a
>
> I think it would be reasonable to have a restriction of only a single
> bootfb instance, so one could just use static global variables/funcs to
> manage the hand-over.
>
> All this, of course, presumes that nobody else than fbcon is using the
> fb. But I think it's also a reasonable restriction
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > There was still no maintainer, that commented, ack'd, nack'd, apply'd the
>> > series. So, this is just a resend.
>> > The patches were tested with:
>> >
>> > - v15 on Tegra by Thierry
>> > - sh-mobile-lcdcfb by Laurent
>> > - MX53QSB by Marek
>> >
