[PATCHv2] Add dynamic video initialization to barebox

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:18:36AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:53AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Juergen Beisert <jbe at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >> > Hi Sascha,
> >> >
> >> > Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:31:36PM +0200, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> >> >> > Currently barebox uses a fixed videomode setup. Everything is compiled
> >> >> > in. This change adds the possibility to select a videomode according to a
> >> >> > connected display at runtime. The current behaviour is still present if
> >> >> > not otherwise configured. If configured for runtime setup, initialization
> >> >> > of the video hardware will be delayed until the required videomode will
> >> >> > be selected from the shell code. If more than one videomode is supported
> >> >> > by the platform, running the 'devinfo' command on the framebuffer device
> >> >> > shows the supported videomode list. After selecting the videomode, the
> >> >> > output can be enabled.
> >> >>
> >> >> General remarks about this series:
> >> >>
> >> >> - Please do not add code with '#if 0' and activate it later. This shows
> >> >>   the series has the wrong order.
> >> >
> >> > This was for review only. If I would change the code in one step, the patch is
> >> > unreadable.
> >> >
> >> >> - Please refrain from basing your internal functions around 'struct
> >> >>   device_d'. By doing so we completey lose type safety and at least in
> >> >>   case of the mci framework where three different devices are involved
> >> >>   this leads to unreadable and error prone code.
> >> >
> >> > But IMHO in the case of the MCI there _are_ three devices!
> >> >  - The one that knows how to handle disk drives
> >> >  - The one that knows what a SD card is
> >> >  - the one that knows how to transfer data from an to an attached device.
> >> >
> >> > Why this is unreadable or error prone? If you combine all these different
> >> > functions into one I would say: Yes, the result is unreadable and error
> >> > prone. And if you would say for a bootloader this separate approach is
> >> > over-engineered, I would say: Maybe.
> >> >
> >> >>   The framebuffer code should be based around struct fb_info.
> >> >
> >> > I do not like this idea, but okay. In the next series I will do it in this
> >> > way.
> >> >
> >> >> - Please keep the line lengths within sensible limits.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I checked it the last time, but some lines are slipped through.
> >> Couldn't be included in barebox scripts also checkpatch.pl script from kernel?
> >> Would be nice to have proper patches with kernel coding style.
> >
> > Sure, send a patch ;)
> Just checkpatch.pl from kernel or invent some less restrictive tool ;)
> in e.g .python?

checkpatch.pl should be fine. I won't require a patch to be checkpatch
clean, but sometimes it's nice to be able to tell people 'go fix these
checkpatch warnings' when there are obvious style problems in it.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |