[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 4/4] common/lcd_console: introduce display/framebuffer rotation
Hannes Petermaier
hannes at petermaier.org
Wed Mar 25 22:24:25 CET 2015
On 2015-03-25 17:24, Nikita Kiryanov wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
Hi Nikita,
> This is almost an Acked-By from me, just a few final comments:
Perfect, i think with v4 we can finish the thing :-)
>
> On 03/19/2015 10:37 AM, Hannes Petermaier wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/README b/README
>> index b0124d6..c649de1 100644
>> --- a/README
>> +++ b/README
>> @@ -1947,6 +1947,28 @@ CBFS (Coreboot Filesystem) support
>> the console jump but can help speed up operation when
>> scrolling
>> is slow.
>>
>> + CONFIG_LCD_ROTATION
>> +
>> + Sometimes, for example if the display is mounted in portrait
>> + mode or even if it mounted landscape but rotated by 180degree,
>
> s/if it/if it's/
>
>> + we need to rotate our content of the display respectively the
>
> s/respectively the/relative to the/
>
>> + framebuffer, so that user can read the messages who are printed
>
> s/who are printed/which are printed/
>
>> + out.
>> + For this we introduce the feature called "CONFIG_LCD_ROTATION",
>> + this may be defined in the board-configuration if needed.
>> After
>> + this the lcd_console will be initialized with a given rotation
>
> "this may be defined in the board-configuration if needed"
> This is true for all config options in general, no need to mention this.
> Also, "For this we introduce" is good for a commit message, but
> doesn't look good
> once committed.
> How about just "Once CONFIG_LCD_ROTATION is defined, the lcd_console
> will be..."
>
>> + from "vl_rot" out of "vidinfo_t" which is provided by the board
>> + specific code.
>> + The value for vl_rot is coded as following (matching to
>> + fbcon=rotate:<n> linux-kernel commandline):
>> + 0 = no rotation respectively 0 degree
>> + 1 = 90 degree rotation
>> + 2 = 180 degree rotation
>> + 3 = 270 degree rotation
>> +
>> + If CONFIG_LCD_ROTATION is not defined, the console will be
>> + initialized with 0degree rotation.
>> +
>> CONFIG_LCD_BMP_RLE8
>>
>> Support drawing of RLE8-compressed bitmaps on the LCD.
>
> [...]
>
>> +static void console_calc_rowcol(struct console_t *pcons)
>> +{
>> + pcons->cols = pcons->lcdsizex / VIDEO_FONT_WIDTH;
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_LCD_LOGO) && !defined(CONFIG_LCD_INFO_BELOW_LOGO)
>> + pcons->rows = (pcons->lcdsizey - BMP_LOGO_HEIGHT);
>> + pcons->rows /= VIDEO_FONT_HEIGHT;
>> +#else
>> + pcons->rows = pcons->lcdsizey / VIDEO_FONT_HEIGHT;
>> +#endif
>> +}
Okay, i will fixup the description in v4 ... maybe these troubles are
coming from, lets say, sub-optimal english-language practise :-)
In original i speak german.
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -235,4 +253,3 @@ U_BOOT_CMD(
>> "print string on lcd-framebuffer",
>> " <string>"
>> );
>> -
>
> Looks like part of the cleanup from the previous series slipped
> through...
Okay, i will remove it.
>
>> +static void console_calc_rowcol_rot(struct console_t *pcons)
>> +{
>> + u32 cols, rows;
>> +
>> + if (pcons->lcdrot == 1 || pcons->lcdrot == 3) {
>> + cols = pcons->lcdsizey;
>> + rows = pcons->lcdsizex;
>> + } else {
>> + cols = pcons->lcdsizex;
>> + rows = pcons->lcdsizey;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pcons->cols = cols / VIDEO_FONT_WIDTH;
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_LCD_LOGO) && !defined(CONFIG_LCD_INFO_BELOW_LOGO)
>> + pcons->rows = (rows - BMP_LOGO_HEIGHT);
>> + pcons->rows /= VIDEO_FONT_HEIGHT;
>> +#else
>> + pcons->rows = rows / VIDEO_FONT_HEIGHT;
>> +#endif
>
> This duplication with console_calc_rowcol() exists because the
> lcdsizey and
> lcdsizex data is expected by the functions to be already in pcons. If you
> change console_calc_rowcol() to accept both variables as additional
> arguments, then console_calc_rowcol() could be reused in
> console_calc_rowcol_rot() and we'll get rid of the code duplication.
I'm not sure about what is more uggly or better.
To avoid this duplication and use one function i have to make this
function non-static and make a mix of rotation-code into lcd_console.c -
i wouldn't prefer this.
Maybe the actual way of this (little) duplication is the beautiful one
and gives most readability of the code.
what do you mean about?
best regards,
Hannes
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list