Hi Frank, On Thursday, 22 February 2018 22:23:20 EET Frank Rowand wrote: > On 02/22/18 05:13, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This patch series addresses a design mistake that dates back from the > > initial DU support. Support for the LVDS encoders, which are IP cores > > separate from the DU, was bundled in the DU driver. Worse, both the DU > > and LVDS were described through a single DT node. > > > > To fix the, patches 1/4 and 2/4 define new DT bindings for the LVDS > > encoders, and deprecate their description inside the DU bindings. To > > retain backward compatibility with existing DT, patch 3/4 then patch the > > device tree at runtime to convert the legacy bindings to the new ones. > > > > With the DT side addressed, patch 4/4 converts the LVDS support code to a > > separate bridge driver. > > > > I decided to go for live DT patching in patch 3/4 because implementing > > support for both the legacy and new bindings in the driver would have been > > very intrusive, and prevented further cleanups. This version relies more > > heavily on overlays to avoid touching the internals of the OF core > > compared to v2, even if manual fixes to the device tree are still needed. > > > > As all the patches but the last one have been acked, I plan to send a pull > > request by the end of the week if no new issue is discovered. > > > > Compared to v5, I've dropped the OF changeset halpers series as Frank > > raised concerns about hidding it in the middle of a driver patch series. > > I've thus copied the implementation of of_changeset_add_property_copy() > > in the driver to avoid blocking this series. The function arguments are > > identical, so when the OF changeset helpers will land it will be very > > easy to drop the private copy and use the > > of_changeset_add_property_copy() helper. > > Thank you Laurent. > > My issues with that are procedural, and I'll reply later about this in the > v4 patch thread, where I raised the issue. (For the peanut gallery, I > replied in thread v4 _after_ Laurent sent v5, so Laurent did not ignore > me in v5.) I would have waited for your ack anyway :-) > My technical comments are more relevent than my process comments, in terms > of helping Laurent get his driver submitted, so I will delay the process > comments. Thank you. > My technical comments will be in reply to patch 3/4. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
