[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160422223047.GA22161@mithrandir.ba.sec>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:30:49 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@...il.com>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Riccardo Bortolato <bortolato@...altechitalia.it>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel: simple: Add support for Innolux AT070TN92
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:11:19PM +0200, Holger Schurig wrote:
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> writes:
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> I once read that this is the recommended way to go, instead of
> specifying the timings in the device tree. Why is this so? Any new
> display just increases the .text size of the kernel unnessary.
It's actually only the .rodata section that's increased every time we
add a new display panel.
> Did this idea stem from the era where bootloaders like Barebox couldn't
> modify the DT ad-hoc before handing it over to the kernel?
No, not really. But since this has come up every now and again I finally
wrote down my recollection and thoughts on the matter, hopefully that
will be satisfactory as an answer:
http://sietch-tagr.blogspot.com/2016/04/display-panels-are-not-special.html
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists