I.MX6 HDMI support in v4.2

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:53:54PM -0400, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Am Dienstag, den 15.09.2015, 17:36 +0100 schrieb Russell King - ARM
> Linux:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:53:45PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > It includes a new kernel<->userspace interface, so needs a modified
> > > xf86-video-armada to go with it. You can pick that up here:
> > > git://git.pengutronix.de/git/lst/xf86-video-armada.git for-rmk
> > > 
> > > Caution: the armada code is WIP and needs further cleanups. It
> > > should
> > > work though.
> > 
> > And it needs updating to the latest version - you seem to be missing
> > a whole load of changes, including the changes which update the
> > kernel API.
> > 
> > So... you seem to be talking about the kernel API having changed from
> > the version which you picked up years ago, rather than the current
> > version.  It's really unclear what you're talking about.
> > 
> What do you mean with missing a lot of stuff? The "for-rmk" branch in
> that repo is your upstream "unstable-devel" branch minus the few XvBO
> commits with my changes on top.

Ah, probably because I haven't pushed the stuff out :)

Anyway, I've taken two of your patches, reworking the second slightly:

1fec728 etnaviv: fix compilation without DRI2 support
1663382 make sure that system strndup doesn't collide with X.Org server version

which are _both_ fixes, and would have been nice for them to have been
sent in a timely manner.

Looking at "etnaviv: fix XV resize for UYVY source format", this is wrong
to the documentation for the GC320.  Documentation which was around for
the GC320 indicates that the _only_ YUV format it supports as a target
is YUY2 with the vertical filter blit.  It's very specifically worded to
indicate that this is the only YUV target format which is supported.
What testing have you done to prove uyvy support, and on which GPUs?

"etnaviv: align vximage buffer size to pagesize" I have issues with as
well - mapping more memory than was passed to the X server is really not
permissible.  If we need the image size to be larger, we need to report
a larger buffer size - and in fact, that's already done.
QueryImageAttributes indicates that the image size is to be rounded
up to a page size.  The X server will reject smaller buffers at higher
levels.  So, this patch isn't required.

The last patch is your final one, I'll look at that at some point,
but for now I'm pushing out the tree as it now stands.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.