Hi Pali, On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 07:57, Pali Rohár <p...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sunday 23 January 2022 07:36:22 Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Pali, > > > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 07:08, Pali Rohár <p...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > + Maemo > > > > > > On Sunday 23 January 2022 07:04:03 Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Drop this code which uses a header that is about to be deleted. > > > > > > And what / where is the replacement? > > > > This is DM_VIDEO. There are quite a few example drivers in > > drivers/video - perhaps the mxsfb.c one is a reasonable example. See > > the top of video_uclass.c for how frame-buffer allocation works. > > I have already WIP patches for usage of video-uclass.c but because > reviewing of N900 patches is slow, I have not sent them yet.
Who is reviewing them? If you send the patches I can review them and we can get them applied for this release. > > So could you please do NOT remove N900 support? I would really > appreciative for reviewing pending patches instead of sending patches > with board removal. This is not a board removal, just dropping a feature. > > Note that there is some issue with video_post_bind(), it throws > false-positive error "Video device '%s' cannot allocate frame buffer > memory" with "return -ENOSPC". If I remove that "return -ENOSPC" it is > working fine. Do you need U-Boot to allocate the frame buffer. If so, this is likely because your driver is not bound before relocation. See the comment around that message in the code. Regards, Simon
