lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] fbdev: bfin-lq035q1-fb: new Blackfin Landscape LCD EZ-Extender driver
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:37:06 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> From: Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>
>
> Framebuffer driver for the Landscape LCD EZ-Extender (ADZS-BFLLCD-EZEXT)
> http://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=hw:cards:landscape_lcd_ez-extender
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
>
> ...
>
> +config FB_BFIN_LQ035Q1
> + tristate "SHARP LQ035Q1DH02 TFT LCD"
> + depends on FB && BLACKFIN
> + select FB_CFB_FILLRECT
> + select FB_CFB_COPYAREA
> + select FB_CFB_IMAGEBLIT
> + select BFIN_GPTIMERS
> + select SPI

Are we sure about the `select SPI'? There's only one other place in
the kernel which does this, and `select' often makes things explode. I
fear that you're either selecting the wrong thing or you're selecting
something which won't work well.

> + help
> + This is the framebuffer device driver for a SHARP LQ035Q1DH02 TFT display found on
> + the Blackfin Landscape LCD EZ-Extender Card.
> + This display is a QVGA 320x240 18-bit RGB display interfaced by an 16-bit wide PPI
> + It uses PPI[0..15] PPI_FS1, PPI_FS2 and PPI_CLK.
>
>
> ...
>
> +
> +#define DRIVER_NAME "bfin-lq035q1"
> +static char driver_name[] = DRIVER_NAME;

Will the compielr magically put this string into read-only storage for
us, or should we do that manually with `const'?

>
> ...
>
> +static int lq035q1_control(unsigned char reg, unsigned short value)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + u8 regs[3] = {LQ035_INDEX, 0, 0};
> + u8 dat[3] = {LQ035_DATA, 0, 0};
> +
> + if (spi_control.spidev) {
> + regs[2] = reg;
> + dat[1] = value >> 8;
> + dat[2] = value & 0xFF;
> +
> + ret = spi_write(spi_control.spidev, regs, ARRAY_SIZE(regs));
> + ret |= spi_write(spi_control.spidev, dat, ARRAY_SIZE(dat));
> + } else
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}

I am suspecting that this function (and the similar ones below) rely
upon state within the hardware and will hence misbehave if two
instances are run concurrently.

Is that correct> If so, is there locking to prevent this from occurring?

>
> ...
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-25 01:37    [W:0.085 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site