On 12-20 09:51, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > static const struct udevice_id bcm2835_video_ids[] = {
> > > > - { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-hdmi" },
> > > > - { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-hdmi0" },
> > > > - { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2708-fb" },
> > > > + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-hdmi", .data = VIDEO_BPP32},
> > > > + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-hdmi0", .data = VIDEO_BPP32},
> > > > + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm2708-fb", .data = VIDEO_BPP16 },
> > > this change looks wrong to me. Before we used VIDEO_BPP32 for
> > > brcm,bcm2708-fb. I think it's hard to explain why we should downgrade
> > > the other boards. I would expect some brcm,bcm2712 compatible at least
> > > this needs an explanation in the commit message.
> > >
I think I found better and reliable way to find the right value.
bpp = pitch / width
Which are queried from firmware.
Tested to work for RPi2b v1.2, RPi3b v1.3, RPi4b v1.1, RPi2 Zero W, RPi5b v1.0.
>
> I think that was RPi1 maybe RPi2 Zero W as well.
>
For the record: RPi2 Zero W exposes "brcm,bcm2835-hdmi" device.
Regards,
Ivan
