On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:53:16 -0500
Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >>> GFP_DMA implies GFP_ATOMIC, but it's appropriate for documentation
> >>> purposes.
> >> So does that mean that "GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL" is always wrong?
> >
> > No, that's OK too. It's just th
Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> GFP_DMA implies GFP_ATOMIC, but it's appropriate for documentation purposes.
>> So does that mean that "GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL" is always wrong?
>
> No, that's OK too. It's just that GFP_DMA|GFP_ATOMIC is a bit redundant
> and misleading. GFP_DMA is already atomic; the on
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:12:30 -0500 Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >> +static struct diu_hw dr = {
> >> + .mode = MFB_MODE1,
> >> + .reg_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init),
> >> +};
> >
> > I'm not clear on what's supposed to happen with __SPIN_LO
Andrew Morton wrote:
>> +static struct diu_hw dr = {
>> +.mode = MFB_MODE1,
>> +.reg_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init),
>> +};
>
> I'm not clear on what's supposed to happen with __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(). I
> do know that its documentation is crap.
Yes, "__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKE
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 15:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > +static struct diu_hw dr = {
> > + .mode = MFB_MODE1,
> > + .reg_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init),
> > +};
>
> I'm not clear on what's supposed to happen with __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(). I
> do know that its document
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:50:26 -0500
York Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following features are supported:
> plane 0 works as a regular frame buffer, can be accessed by /dev/fb0
> plane 1 has two AOIs (area of interest), can be accessed by /dev/fb1 and
> /dev/fb2
> plane 2 has two AOIs, can b
