On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:28PM +0200, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 3:36 PM
To: Hiremath, Vaibhav
Cc: Grazvydas Ignotas; linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-
omap@vger.kernel.org; Valkeinen Tomi (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: DSS2: OMAPFB: add support for FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC

On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 08:08:14AM +0200, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -648,6 +649,17 @@ int omapfb_ioctl(struct fb_info *fbi, unsigned int

cmd,

quoted

quoted

unsigned long arg)
 			r = -EFAULT;
 		break;

+	case FBIO_WAITFORVSYNC:
+		if (get_user(p.crt, (__u32 __user *)arg)) {
+			r = -EFAULT;
+			break;
+		}
+		if (p.crt != 0) {
+			r = -ENODEV;
+			break;
+		}
+		/* FALLTHROUGH */
+
 	case OMAPFB_WAITFORVSYNC:

[Hiremath, Vaibhav] I don't see any reason why we should still keep old

custom IOCTL support here.

It can already be used so it should not be removed.

[Hiremath, Vaibhav] I am not in favor of this, if we have standard interface then we should encourage people to use it. Don't you think we will have different interface for OMAP and different for non-omap device.

What anyone thinks that apps should do doesn't matter. Removing the
ioctl will break the ABI and that is not an acceptable thing to do in
kernel development usually.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä