Hi Timo, sorry for my late reply.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:01:48 +0300 "Timo Ketola" <t...@exertus.fi> wrote: > Dear Stefano, Anatolij, Scott, > > On 18.04.2012 13:47, Stefano Babic wrote: > > On 18/04/2012 10:54, Timo Ketola wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Timo Ketola <t...@exertus.fi> > ... > >> diff --git a/drivers/video/mx2fb.c b/drivers/video/mx2fb.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..9ee4a3e > > > > IMHO it is better if you use the video API instead of the old LCD > > interface, that means using CONFIG_VIDEO. You have then to implement a > > video_hw_init() function for your initialisation. I think there are > > advantages doing that, and recently some drivers moved to this API, for > > example the driver for i.MX3 (mx3fb.c). > > I agree on that but unfortunately I'm short on time. What if I > implement the driver in my board folder instead? I suppose there is not > too much interest to get generic LCD support for i.MX2 because it is > not yet there and architecture is a little oldish. I would prefer not including the driver in the board code. The disadvantage of using the video API is increased code size. If you do not need the framebuffer console, then using the LCD interface is okay. > There should still be register definitions in the imx-regs.h like I > propose in this patch. Or should I keep them too in my board folder? No, better keep them in imx-regs.h. If you are going to update and resubmit your mx2fb patch, then please base your work on the u-boot-samsung tree [1] as there are another lcd driver changes in this tree. Or wait until samsung tree will be merged and then rebase your work on top of u-boot tree. Thanks, Anatolij [1] http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-samsung.git;a=summary _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
