Allows setting bpp from dt
Radoslaw Pietrzyk (1):
staging: fbtft: Allows bpp to be set from dt
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
--
1.9.1
Allows bpp to be set from dt
Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
index 7c8af29..b25288b 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
@@ -685,6 +685,8 @@ struct fb_info *fbtft_framebuffer_alloc(struct fbtft_display *display,
/* override driver values? */
if (pdata->fps)
fps = pdata->fps;
+ if (pdata->bpp)
+ bpp = pdata->bpp;
if (pdata->txbuflen)
txbuflen = pdata->txbuflen;
if (pdata->display.init_sequence)
--
1.9.1
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:25:27AM +0100, Radoslaw Pietrzyk wrote:
> Allows bpp to be set from dt
>
> Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> index 7c8af29..b25288b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> @@ -685,6 +685,8 @@ struct fb_info *fbtft_framebuffer_alloc(struct fbtft_display *display,
> /* override driver values? */
> if (pdata->fps)
> fps = pdata->fps;
> + if (pdata->bpp)
> + bpp = pdata->bpp;
> if (pdata->txbuflen)
> txbuflen = pdata->txbuflen;
> if (pdata->display.init_sequence)
This breaks the build, how did you test this???
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Radoslaw,
[auto build test WARNING on staging/staging-testing]
[also build test WARNING on v4.11-rc2 next-20170310]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Radoslaw-Pietrzyk/staging-fbtft-Allows-bpp-to-be-set-from-dt/20170313-053026
config: i386-randconfig-x000-201711 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.2.0-3) 6.2.0 20160901
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=i386
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0,
from include/linux/stddef.h:4,
from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4,
from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13,
from include/linux/types.h:5,
from include/linux/list.h:4,
from include/linux/module.h:9,
from drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:19:
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c: In function 'fbtft_framebuffer_alloc':
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:702:11: error: 'struct fbtft_platform_data' has no member named 'bpp'
if (pdata->bpp)
^
include/linux/compiler.h:160:30: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
if (__builtin_constant_p(!!(cond)) ? !!(cond) : \
^~~~
>> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:702:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (pdata->bpp)
^~
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:702:11: error: 'struct fbtft_platform_data' has no member named 'bpp'
if (pdata->bpp)
^
include/linux/compiler.h:160:42: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
if (__builtin_constant_p(!!(cond)) ? !!(cond) : \
^~~~
>> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:702:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (pdata->bpp)
^~
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:702:11: error: 'struct fbtft_platform_data' has no member named 'bpp'
if (pdata->bpp)
^
include/linux/compiler.h:171:16: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
______r = !!(cond); \
^~~~
>> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:702:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (pdata->bpp)
^~
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c:703:14: error: 'struct fbtft_platform_data' has no member named 'bpp'
bpp = pdata->bpp;
^~
vim +/if +702 drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
686 }
687
688 /* defaults */
689 if (!fps)
690 fps = 20;
691 if (!bpp)
692 bpp = 16;
693
694 if (!pdata) {
695 dev_err(dev, "platform data is missing\n");
696 return NULL;
697 }
698
699 /* override driver values? */
700 if (pdata->fps)
701 fps = pdata->fps;
> 702 if (pdata->bpp)
703 bpp = pdata->bpp;
704 if (pdata->txbuflen)
705 txbuflen = pdata->txbuflen;
706 if (pdata->display.init_sequence)
707 init_sequence = pdata->display.init_sequence;
708 if (pdata->gamma)
709 gamma = pdata->gamma;
710 if (pdata->display.debug)
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
Allows bpp to be set from dt
Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
index 7c8af29..cb0c10d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
@@ -685,6 +685,8 @@ struct fb_info *fbtft_framebuffer_alloc(struct fbtft_display *display,
/* override driver values? */
if (pdata->fps)
fps = pdata->fps;
+ if (pdata->display.bpp)
+ bpp = pdata->display.bpp;
if (pdata->txbuflen)
txbuflen = pdata->txbuflen;
if (pdata->display.init_sequence)
--
1.9.1
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Radoslaw Pietrzyk wrote:
> Allows bpp to be set from dt
>
Who does this affect in real life? You haven't tested it apparently so
it's hard to say why you are doing this.
regards,
dan carpenter
I have and used with stm32 and fb_ili9341. First patch was shitty, my bad.
2017-03-13 12:00 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Radoslaw Pietrzyk wrote:
>> Allows bpp to be set from dt
>>
>
> Who does this affect in real life? You haven't tested it apparently so
> it's hard to say why you are doing this.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:07:20PM +0100, Radosław Pietrzyk wrote:
> I have and used with stm32 and fb_ili9341. First patch was shitty, my bad.
>
Could you resend with a patch description which says why you are doing
this?
"With stm32 and fb_ili9341 the monitor just sits there blinking because
bpp is not set" or something.
regards,
dan carpenter
Ok I will. I just have thought that in general it might be helpful to
have this possibility as DT is parsed for this option anyway. If you
think it is not needed at all that why to bother parsing DT for this
option in the first place ?
2017-03-13 12:11 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:07:20PM +0100, Radosław Pietrzyk wrote:
>> I have and used with stm32 and fb_ili9341. First patch was shitty, my bad.
>>
>
> Could you resend with a patch description which says why you are doing
> this?
>
> "With stm32 and fb_ili9341 the monitor just sits there blinking because
> bpp is not set" or something.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:16:13PM +0100, Radosław Pietrzyk wrote:
> Ok I will. I just have thought that in general it might be helpful to
> have this possibility as DT is parsed for this option anyway. If you
> think it is not needed at all that why to bother parsing DT for this
> option in the first place ?
I'm not saying it's a wrong patch, I just think the patch description
doesn't explain why you are doing it or the user visible effects of the
change.
regards,
dan carpenter
Understood
2017-03-13 12:19 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:16:13PM +0100, Radosław Pietrzyk wrote:
>> Ok I will. I just have thought that in general it might be helpful to
>> have this possibility as DT is parsed for this option anyway. If you
>> think it is not needed at all that why to bother parsing DT for this
>> option in the first place ?
>
> I'm not saying it's a wrong patch, I just think the patch description
> doesn't explain why you are doing it or the user visible effects of the
> change.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>