[PATCH 02/14] video: nokia_rx51: Drop obsolete video code

[Simon Glass]

Hi Pali,

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 09:01, Pali Rohár <pali at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> On Sunday 23 January 2022 08:54:24 Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Pali,
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 07:57, Pali Rohár <pali at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday 23 January 2022 07:36:22 Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Pali,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 07:08, Pali Rohár <pali at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > + Maemo
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday 23 January 2022 07:04:03 Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Drop this code which uses a header that is about to be deleted.
> > > > >
> > > > > And what / where is the replacement?
> > > >
> > > > This is DM_VIDEO. There are quite a few example drivers in
> > > > drivers/video - perhaps the mxsfb.c one is a reasonable example. See
> > > > the top of video_uclass.c for how frame-buffer allocation works.
> > >
> > > I have already WIP patches for usage of video-uclass.c but because
> > > reviewing of N900 patches is slow, I have not sent them yet.
> >
> > Who is reviewing them?
>
> Lokesh is reviewing omap3 and n900 patches.
>
> > If you send the patches I can review them and
> > we can get them applied for this release.
>
> I have already wrote in other thread I do not want to send too many
> patches if I see that review process is slow. And also because I totally
> lost the track what was send, what was not and what depends on what. And
> I do not want to work on too many things in paralel if I see that it
> took half year or more to make patches in acceptable form.
>
> > >
> > > So could you please do NOT remove N900 support? I would really
> > > appreciative for reviewing pending patches instead of sending patches
> > > with board removal.
> >
> > This is not a board removal, just dropping a feature.
>
> ... feature which is essential and without which board is unusable.
>
> > >
> > > Note that there is some issue with video_post_bind(), it throws
> > > false-positive error "Video device '%s' cannot allocate frame buffer
> > > memory" with "return -ENOSPC". If I remove that "return -ENOSPC" it is
> > > working fine.
> >
> > Do you need U-Boot to allocate the frame buffer. If so, this is likely
> > because your driver is not bound before relocation. See the comment
> > around that message in the code.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
>
> I did not spend too much time for investigation. I just saw that
> removing that comment and returning makes it fully working.

Sure, but it is indicating a bug, so needs to be figured out. If you
read the top of video-uclass.c you can probably see what is going on.

Regards,
Simon