displayio: further ensure just one start_terminal call #3551
Conversation
|
@jepler is this on your radar? it should probably be in the release candidate. |
|
With the typo fixed, this works in my tests (with an imaginary sharp and a real four-wire display) and removes the last blocker for #3482 I can think of. But someone should probably give it a quick test on a real Monster M4sk. (One thing I was wondering while testing but didn’t investigate: is the terminal supposed to show up on both displays? Because when I initialize the (inexistent) sharp display first, then the four-wire one, I don’t see any terminal activity on the latter.) |
Right now it's only on the first. We don't handle multiple displays well. I was wondering if we should allow a group to show on multiple displays. That doesn't work now because the transformations from the display are pushed down into the groups and tilegrids. |
25a761a to
f047c64
Compare
|
I've updated this PR after the changes to french translation on main |
|
And you re-added the “framebufferdisplay” typo. |
|
aw gee! |
@cwalther determined that for boards with 2 displays (monster m4sk), start_terminal would be called for each one, leaking supervisor heap entries. Determine, by comparing addresses, whether the display being acted on is the first display (number zero) and do (or do not) call start_terminal. stop_terminal can safely be called multiple times, so there's no need to guard against calling it more than once. Slight behavioral change: The terminal size would follow the displays[0] size, not the displays[1] size
f047c64 to
88d07ef
Compare
@cwalther determined that for boards with 2 displays (monster m4sk), start_terminal would be called for each one, leaking supervisor heap entries.
Determine, by comparing addresses, whether the display being acted on is the first display (number zero) and do (or do not) call start_terminal.
stop_terminal can safely be called multiple times, so there's no need to guard against calling it more than once.
Slight behavioral change: The terminal size would follow the displays[0] size, not the displays[1] size
Testing performed: none