Ah, sorry. Forgot to answer this.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 05:45:31PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Ping.
On 2013-02-18 16:09, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Hi Steffen,
On 2013-01-25 11:01, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
+/* VESA display monitor timing parameters */ +#define VESA_DMT_HSYNC_LOW BIT(0) +#define VESA_DMT_HSYNC_HIGH BIT(1) +#define VESA_DMT_VSYNC_LOW BIT(2) +#define VESA_DMT_VSYNC_HIGH BIT(3)
+/* display specific flags */ +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_DE_LOW BIT(0) /* data enable flag */ +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_DE_HIGH BIT(1) +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_PIXDATA_POSEDGE BIT(2) /* drive data on pos. edge */ +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_PIXDATA_NEGEDGE BIT(3) /* drive data on neg. edge */ +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_INTERLACED BIT(4) +#define DISPLAY_FLAGS_DOUBLESCAN BIT(5)
<snip>
- unsigned int dmt_flags; /* VESA DMT flags */
- unsigned int data_flags; /* video data flags */
Why did you go for this approach? To be able to represent true/false/not-specified?
We decided somewhere between v3 and v8 (I think), that those flags can be high/low/ignored.
Would it be simpler to just have "flags" field? What does it give us to have those two separately?
I decided to split them, so it is clear that some flags are VESA defined and the others are "invented" for the display-timings framework and may be extended.
Should the above say raising edge/falling edge instead of positive edge/negative edge?
Hm, I used posedge/negedge because it is shorter (and because of my Verilog past pretty natural to me :-) ). I don't know what others are thinking though.
Regards, Steffen