search for: headc57d_olut

The base917c_format isn't exported, so make it static to avoid the following warning: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/base917c.c:26:1: warning: symbol 'base917c_format' was not declared. Should it be static? Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks at codethink.co.uk> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/base917c.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

...urs_layout = head917d_curs_layout, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c index 32a7f9e85fb0..46c6822feefc 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c @@ -151,17 +151,20 @@ headc57d_olut_load(struct drm_color_lut *in, int size, void __iomem *mem) writew(readw(mem - 4), mem + 4); } -void -headc57d_olut(struct nv50_head *head, struct nv50_head_atom *asyh) +bool +headc57d_olut(struct nv50_head *head, struct nv50_head_atom *asyh, int size) { + if (size != 256 && size != 1...

..., .curs_set = headc37d_curs_set, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c index 32a7f9e85fb0..0d91ba8000cc 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/headc57d.c @@ -152,13 +152,12 @@ headc57d_olut_load(struct drm_color_lut *in, int size, void __iomem *mem) } void -headc57d_olut(struct nv50_head *head, struct nv50_head_atom *asyh) +headc57d_olut(struct nv50_head *head, struct nv50_head_atom *asyh, int size) { asyh->olut.mode = 2; /* DIRECT10 */ asyh->olut.size = 4 /* VSS header...

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,

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,