Hi everybody,
On Thursday 15 September 2011 20:39:21 Florian Tobias Schandinat wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 05:52 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >
> > Please don't claim that the DRM developers do not want to cooperate.
> > I realize that people have strong opinions about existing APIs, put
> > there has bee
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Florian Tobias Schandinat
wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 06:23 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it? Well, okay, I don't want to use any acceleration that can crash my
>>> machine, where can I select it, preferably as compile time option? I didn't
>>> find
>>> such a thin
On Thursday 15 September 2011 19:05:00 Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:50:32 -0500
> Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:29:54 +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > > 1) It's part of DRM, so it doesn't help fb or v4l2 drivers. Except if
> > > the plan is to make DRM the core Linux d
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Florian Tobias Schandinat
wrote:
> Again, you seem to not understand my reasoning. The "if" is the problem, it's
> the kernels job to ensure stability. Allowing the userspace to decide whether
> it
> crashes my machine is not acceptable to me.
> I do not claim th
On 09/17/2011 04:47 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. This depends on the functionality the hardware has, the desired
>> userspace and the manpower one has to do it. And of course if you just want
>> fb
>> having fb via DRM/KMS has some overhead/bloat. It's perfectly okay to have
>> just
>
On 09/17/2011 06:23 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Is it? Well, okay, I don't want to use any acceleration that can crash my
>> machine, where can I select it, preferably as compile time option? I didn't
>> find
>> such a thing for Intel or Radeon. Don't say, I should rely on userspace here
>> or
>
> Just tell the X driver to not use acceleration, and it you won't get
> any acceleration used, then you get complete stability. If a driver
> writer wants to turn off all accel in the kernel driver, it can, its
In fact one thing we actually need really is a "dumb" KMS X server to
replace the fbde
>
> Is it? Well, okay, I don't want to use any acceleration that can crash my
> machine, where can I select it, preferably as compile time option? I didn't
> find
> such a thing for Intel or Radeon. Don't say, I should rely on userspace here
> or
> use fbdev for this.
Just tell the X driver to n
On 09/17/2011 03:16 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>From userspace perspective, fbdev doesn't go away. It is just a
> legacy interface provided on top of DRM/KMS driver mostly via helper
> functions. With this approach, you get the richer KMS API (and all
> the related plumbing for hotplug, EDID parsing,
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Florian Tobias Schandinat
wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 03:16 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>From userspace perspective, fbdev doesn't go away. It is just a
>> legacy interface provided on top of DRM/KMS driver mostly via helper
>> functions. With this approach, you get the r
>
> I disagree. This depends on the functionality the hardware has, the desired
> userspace and the manpower one has to do it. And of course if you just want fb
> having fb via DRM/KMS has some overhead/bloat. It's perfectly okay to have
> just
> an fb driver for devices that can't do more anyway.
Hi AJ,
What expansion board and revision are you using? The i2c lines supporting
EDID aren't available on some older revisions of Tobi and this causes the
display initialization to fail on some hwpacks I've tried.
-Ash
On Sep 16, 2011 10:10 PM, "Tom Gall" wrote:
> Which hwpack are you using?
>
> O
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> One of my biggest problems with KMS is that it has (naturally) a lot more
>> complexity than the fb API which leads to instability. Basically it's very
>
> It shouldn't do - and a sample of one (your machine) is not a
> statistically valid set. F
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> One of my biggest problems with KMS is that it has (naturally) a lot more
>>> complexity than the fb API which leads to instability. Basically it's very
>>
>> It shouldn't do - and a sa
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:59:01AM +0530, Sudhangathan B S wrote:
> I need to boot Linaro in very short time as my project has a
> constraint on energy. The normal linaro boot up time is 2 minutes and
> 15 seconds on my overo fire. I did a little startup tweaks and
> achieved 2:00 minutes. Is there
15 matches
Mail list logo
