Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "crtc_wr_cio_stat".
Did you mean:
crtc_wr_cio_state
2009 Nov 23
2
[PATCH 1/3] drm/nouveau: Update the CRTC arbitration parameters on FB depth switch.
...RTC[NV_CIO_CRE_PIXEL_INDEX] &= ~3;
regp->CRTC[NV_CIO_CRE_PIXEL_INDEX] |= (crtc->fb->depth + 1) / 8;
regp->ramdac_gen_ctrl &= ~NV_PRAMDAC_GENERAL_CONTROL_ALT_MODE_SEL;
if (crtc->fb->depth == 16)
regp->ramdac_gen_ctrl |= NV_PRAMDAC_GENERAL_CONTROL_ALT_MODE_SEL;
crtc_wr_cio_state(crtc, regp, NV_CIO_CRE_PIXEL_INDEX);
- NVWriteRAMDAC(crtc->dev, nv_crtc->index, NV_PRAMDAC_GENERAL_CONTROL,
+ NVWriteRAMDAC(dev, nv_crtc->index, NV_PRAMDAC_GENERAL_CONTROL,
regp->ramdac_gen_ctrl);
regp->CRTC[NV_CIO_CR_OFFSET_INDEX] = drm_fb->pitch >> 3;
@@ -812...
2009 Aug 10
1
[RFC] drm/nouveau: optimize code emission of inline functions
[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]
2023 Jul 12
8
[PATCH RFC v1 00/52] drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev
Hello,
while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly
irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev"
because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer.
I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to "drm_dev".
I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine
for me,
2023 Jul 12
8
[PATCH RFC v1 00/52] drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev
Hello,
while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly
irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev"
because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer.
I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to "drm_dev".
I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine
for me,