Am Donnerstag, den 06.03.2014, 16:47 +0100 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki: > On 06/03/14 16:17, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:16:57 +0000 > > Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:42:34PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > >>> > > Am Mittwoch, den 05.03.2014, 13:35 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen: [...] > >>>> > > > So, as I've pointed out, I don't agree with the API, as it's too limited > >>>> > > > and I can't use it, but as this series is (mostly) about moving the > >>>> > > > current API to a common place, it's fine for me. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Acked-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks. I'll be happy to help expanding the API to parse ports > >>> > > individually, once this gets accepted. > >>> > > > >>> > > Mauro, Guennadi, are you fine with how this turned out? I'd like to get > >>> > > your acks again, for the changed location. > > > > From my side, there's nothing on such code that is V4L2 specific. > > Moving it to drivers/of makes sense on my eyes. > > > > Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm OK with patches 1...5, 8, so for these: > > Acked-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Regarding the simplified version of the binding, I thought we should > leave 'port' instead of 'endpoint' node. This could cover more hardware > configurations. Are there any users of this simplified binding queued > for v3.15 ? If not, perhaps we can postpone it and discuss it a bit more > (sorry, couldn't find time to comment on that earlier) ? Since Tomi needs the separate port/endpoint iteration anyway, postponing the simple bindings shouldn't hurt. I'll (re)submit them together in a second series. > >> > I'll need those acks before I can even think about queuing up the > >> > imx-drm bits. > >> > > >> > Another way to deal with this is if this gets pulled into the V4L tree > >> > from Philipp's git tree, I can also pull that in myself. What mustn't > >> > happen is for these to be committed independently as patches. > > > > If everyone agrees, I actually prefer have this patch applied on my tree, > > in order to avoid some potential merge conflicts at the merge window, > > as we might have other drivers and changes there touching on those API > > calls (I'm aware of a series of patches from Sylwester with some DT > > stuff on it. Not sure if it would be affected by such changes or not). > > Yes, it's going to conflict with my patch series. I thought it could be > put onto a stable a topic branch, e.g. at git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git, > which could be then pulled into the media master branch and anywhere > else it is needed ? Mauro, are you ok with handling the conflict in the merge, or should I rebase on top of the media tree after you merged Sylwester's changes? regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
