linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87h9fwdwh6.fsf@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:03:01 +0200
From:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
Cc:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > +
>> >> > +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */
>> >> 
>> >> I assume you mean 480x864 ?
>> >
>> > Yes, nice catch. Basically the screen is 480x864, but only
>> > 480x854 are visible.
>> 
>> It's been a while, but I thought the full 480x864 was actually usable
>> and visible.
>
> I tried that first and the first few lines were missing. The stock
> kernel also uses only 854px:
>
> https://github.com/nemomobile/kernel-adaptation-n950-n9/blob/mer-n9-2.6.32-20121301/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rm680-video.c
>
> (search for partial_area)

Heh, I was reminded by old colleagues that it was actually my commit
back in the day that changed the resolution 864->854 in the stock
kernel. And that I did it reluctantly, because there really was no
technical reason to do the change.

I don't really care all that much either way anymore. I just thought
you'd like to get those 4800 pixels back that you've been missing all
these years. Plus 864 was nicer to deal with because it has 2^5 as a
prime factor while 854 only has 2.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center