Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-17 Thread Clark, Rob
Hmm, I was thinking more on the xf86 side of things.. ie. to provide default implementations of xf86CrtcFuncsRec and xf86OutputFuncsRec functions.. BR, -R On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Jammy Zhou jammy.z...@linaro.org wrote: There is already one KMS abstraction layer (libkms.so) in libdrm,

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-17 Thread James Simmons
I'm still in the learning-as-I-go phase here, so definitely not ready to propose a solution, but it does seem to me like there is room for some sort of kms-helper library here to handle more of the boilerplate xf86-video-* stuff.. I guess I'll have a better picture once I have a chance to

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-17 Thread Jammy Zhou
To accommodate the fact of independent display controller and GPU components in ARM SOC, it will be better if we can separate KMS from DRM both in kernel space and user space (i.e, create a new drivers/video/kms directory for kernel side, move KMS related code in libdrm to libkms in user space).

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-17 Thread Jammy Zhou
I also noticed that default XRandR1.2+ implementation is missing in X side. If we can implement one, it would be beneficial for all ARM platforms. By the way, does X driver of TI support XRandR1.2+? Regards, Jammy On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Clark, Rob r...@ti.com wrote: Hmm, I was

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-17 Thread Clark, Rob
I'm all for a more modular drm, although I think the framework of CRTCs, encoders, and connectors is a nice fit, at least for our hw. It would be nice to have a better way to expose overlays. And I'm still thinking about how/if GEM fits in with our various video and 2/3d accelerators. BR, -R On

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-17 Thread Clark, Rob
I'm in the process of adding xrandr support to our xorg driver.. definitely more built-in support on the X side would make this easier. BR, -R On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Jammy Zhou jammy.z...@linaro.org wrote: I also noticed that default XRandR1.2+ implementation is missing in X side. If

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-16 Thread Jesse Barker
Speaking for the Linaro graphics working group, I think it's great. And, I think you're right, that if enough of the KMS support in xf86-video-* is similar enough (I was only aware of intel and nouveau supporting it properly at current), pulling it out into a common layer would make it easier to

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-16 Thread Clark, Rob
I'm still in the learning-as-I-go phase here, so definitely not ready to propose a solution, but it does seem to me like there is room for some sort of kms-helper library here to handle more of the boilerplate xf86-video-* stuff.. I guess I'll have a better picture once I have a chance to add

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-15 Thread Clark, Rob
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: On Wednesday 09 February 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: The driver patch itself is Cced to linux-fbdev, only the introductory mail is not. Ok, I see. Did you consider making the driver a KMS driver instead of a frame buffer?

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-10 Thread Robert Schwebel
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:31:07PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: Ok. This sounds like a lot of upfront work indeed, to make KMS more generic, though I think a number of driver would benefit from it eventually. It could be something for the Linaro graphics working group to look at in the

Re: [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver

2011-02-09 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 09 February 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: The driver patch itself is Cced to linux-fbdev, only the introductory mail is not. Ok, I see. Did you consider making the driver a KMS driver instead of a frame buffer? I think the recommendation these days is to start out with KMS for