Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [PATCH] eink_apollofb: new driver for Apollo eInk controller.

[Andrew M. <ak...@li...>]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:19:28 +0300
Yauhen Kharuzhy <je...@gm...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 03:03:05AM +0800, Jaya Kumar wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Mikhail Gusarov
> > <dot...@do...> wrote:
> > > Twas brillig at 11:02:29 13.07.2008 UTC+08 when jay...@gm... did gyre and gimble:
> > >
> > >  JK> However, I should point out that hecubafb is a driver for this same
> > >  JK> apollo controller.
> > >
> > > AFAICT from the diff, eink_apollofb already includes all the features of
> > > hecubafb, so that would be just renaming. Is it worth it?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > 
> > Hi Mikhail,
> > 
> > Looking at the posted code, it is the same code as hecubafb, renamed,
> > and with the 2-bit, partial update, and flash features added.
> Hardware abstraction layer (with platform_device framework) and rotation also :)
> 
> > The new
> > features are good but basically, its a fork of hecubafb. I'm
> > suggesting that rather than doing that, it would make more sense to
> > add those features to the existing hecubafb code. If any help is
> > needed in making that happen, please let me know, I'm happy to help.
> 
> I am agreed. I saw 'Apollo' name more frequently than any other, but
> it is not a matter of principe.
> 

I agree that having a separate-but-similar driver for the same hardware
is most undesirable.

I presently have
eink_apollofb-new-driver-for-apollo-eink-controller.patch on "hold"
status, waiting for some resolution here.