[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9a67217-4665-0d31-378d-ade1d50fe5f1@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:10:57 +0200
From: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...0n.name, sam@...nborg.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
deller@....de, chenhuacai@...nel.org, javierm@...hat.com,
vgupta@...nel.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
arnd@...db.de, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] fbdev: Define framebuffer I/O from Linux' I/O
functions
Hi
Am 28.04.23 um 14:27 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
[...]
>
> In addition, the non-raw variants may do some extras to guarantee
> ordering, which you do not need on a frame buffer.
Given this comment, should we declare the fb_() helpers in
<asm-generic/io.h> or <linux/io.h>?
I still don't like the idea of having the functions in <linux/fb.h>. We
have code in DRM that also accesses framebuffer memory (via
memcpy_toio()). It would make sense to use the fb_() helpers, if they
are tailored towards this usecase.
Best regards
Thomas
>
> So I'd go for the __raw_*() variants everywhere.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (841 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists