[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100315141304.GF700@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:13:04 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Luotao Fu <l.fu@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ian.org>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...pv.it>,
Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1@...pl>,
Kevin Wells <wellsk40@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amba-clcd: add RGB444 support
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 02:59:45PM +0100, Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 01:38:10PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 02:30:09PM +0100, Luotao Fu wrote:
> > > This one adds RGB444 (bpp=12) support to amba clcd drivers. Tested on a lpc3250
> > > based platform.
> >
> > No - this is wrong. You have a 16bpp display. bpp is the number of bits
> > in the framebuffer between two successive pixels. It is not the number of
> > bits used for the pixel information.
> >
>
> > The only case where you have a 12bpp display is if you have two pixels
> > packed into three bytes.
> >
> For 12bpp actually 16bits/pixel is used. I'm aware of that. That's the
> reason why the fb.var.bits_per_pixel is set to 16 in clcdfb_decode if
> it is originally set to 12 from the platform file to make usage of 16bpp
> display. omapfb driver does quite the same.
Then omapfb is also buggy and needs fixing in a similar manner.
The de-facto way of determining the bitfield structure is as I highlighted,
which is used by all the x86 drivers supporting RGB555 and RGB565.
We don't use bits_per_pixel=15 for RGB555, and using bits_per_pixel=12 for
RGB444 is wrong for all the same reasons.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists