On 12.10.2015 13:09, Yakir Yang wrote: > > > On 10/12/2015 11:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12.10.2015 11:43, Yakir Yang wrote: >>> On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: >>>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>>> >>>>> On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: >>>>>> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from >>>>>> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge >>>>>> by the video code. >>>>>> >>>>>> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take >>>>>> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Changes in v6: None >>>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", >>>>> + &video->h_sync_polarity); >>>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", >>>>> + &video->v_sync_polarity); >>>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", >>>>> + &video->interlaced); >>>>> +} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would >>>>> remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect >>>>> more comment/reviewed/ack. :) >>>> Right. >>>> >>>> You can send a v7 of only this patch. >>>> >>>> In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of >>>> entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me >>>> because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the >>>> top of my email list. >>> Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the >>> previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give >>> up this way to send patchset :) >>> >>>> In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version >>>> (with >>>> this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. >>> Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous >>> format, like: >>> >>> ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter >>> |----> [PATCH v6 01/17] >>> |----> [PATCH ......] >>> |----> [PATCH v6 05/17] >>> |----> [PATCH v7 05/17] >>> |----> [PATCH ......] >>> |----> [PATCH v6 17/17] >>> >>> Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with >>> RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ? >>> >>> ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter >>> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17] >>> |----> [PATCH ......] >>> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17] >>> |----> [PATCH v7 05/17] >>> |----> [PATCH ......] >>> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17] >>> >> No, don't resend everything. I mean in this case with such big patchset >> if you want to fix one patch just send one email [PATCH v7 05/17] >> chained to proper id (cover letter or v6-05/17). Add a short note that >> this is resend of only one patch from the set. > > Oh, understand now, just keep this chain-reply no changes for now. > > ----> [PATCH v4 00/16] Cover letter > |----> [PATCH v5 00/17] Covert letter > |----> [PATCH ......] > | > |----> [PATCH v6 00/17] Covert letter > |----> [PATCH v6 01/17] > |----> [PATCH ......] > |----> [PATCH v6 17/17] > |----> [PATCH v7 05/17] Yes, I think it is correct. Maybe just add a note (in patch changelog) that this is v7 of only fifth patch. Best regards, Krzysztof -- 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
