[PATCH 0/5] at91: atmel_lcdfb: regression fixes and cpu_is removal

Nicolas Ferre nicolas.ferre at atmel.com
Fri Mar 8 04:37:45 EST 2013

On 02/10/2013 07:45 PM, Johan Hovold :
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Olof Johansson <olof at 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

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list