Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:37:45 +0100 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] at91: atmel_lcdfb: regression fixes and cpu_is removal |
| |
On 02/10/2013 07:45 PM, Johan Hovold : > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 05:35:13PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>> These patches fix a regression in 16-bpp support for older SOCs which >>> use IBGR:555 rather than BGR:565 pixel layout. Use SOC-type to >>> determine if the controller uses the intensity-bit and restore the >>> old layout in that case. >>> >>> The last patch is a removal of uses of cpu_is_xxxx() macros in >>> atmel_lcdfb with a platform-device-id table and static >>> configurations. >>> >>> >>> Patches from Johan Hovold taken from: "[PATCH 0/3] atmel_lcdfb: fix >>> 16-bpp regression" and "[PATCH v2 0/3] ARM: at91/avr32/atmel_lcdfb: >>> remove cpu_is macros" patch series to form a clean patch series with >>> my signature. >>> >>> Arnd, Olof, as it seems that old fbdev drivers are not so much >>> reviewed those days, can we take the decision to queue this material >>> through arm-soc with other AT91 drivers updates? >> >> It would be beneficial to get an ack from Florian. Was he involved in >> the review of the code that regressed 16-bpp support in the first >> place? When was the regression introduced? > > In v3.4 by commit 787f9fd2328 ("atmel_lcdfb: support 16bit BGR:565 mode, > remove unsupported 15bit modes").
Arnd, Olof,
Please tell me if I can do something to ease the adoption of these patches during 3.9-rc timeframe (I can rebase it on top of 3.9-rc1 to avoid any conflict: the file board-neocore926.c was removed during the merge window). Johan has written the series a long time ago and we still do not have it in mainline.
If the option to ask Andrew is better in your opinion, please tell me.
Best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre
| |