Hi Maxime, Noralf & everyone, I'd like to address Noralf here in particular, and refer to these discussions from the past: - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/2f607c7d-6da1-c8df-1c02-8dd344a92343@xxxxxxxxx/ - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/9e76a508-f469-a54d-ecd7-b5868ca99af4@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > @@ -2230,20 +2256,22 @@ struct drm_named_mode { > unsigned int xres; > unsigned int yres; > unsigned int flags; > + unsigned int tv_mode; > }; I saw that you (Noralf) opposed my suggestion about the DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_NONE enum value in enum drm drm_connector_tv_mode. I get your argumentation, and I'm not gonna argue, but I still don't like the fact that struct drm_named_mode now includes a field that is only relevant for analog TV modes, has no "none" value, and yet the type is supposed to be generic enough to be usable for other types of outputs as well. It's true that it can just be ignored (as Maxime mentioned in his response to my e-mail linked above), and now the value of 0 corresponds to DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_NTSC, which is a rather sane default, but it still feels messy to me. I'm not gonna force my opinion here, but I wanted to bring your attention to this issue, maybe you have some other solution in mind for this problem. Or if you don't see that as a problem at all, that's fine, too. Best regards, Mateusz Kwiatkowski
