On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:54:39AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > On 2024/4/29 19:55, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 01:57:46PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > > > On 2024/4/26 14:23, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:43:18AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > > > > > On 2024/4/26 03:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:08:16AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > > > > > > > On 2024/4/25 22:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > It seems driver missed the point of proper use of device property APIs. > > > > > > > > Correct this by updating headers and calls respectively. > > > > > > > You are using the 'seems' here exactly saying that you are not 100% sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please allow me to tell you the truth: This patch again has ZERO effect. > > > > > > > It fix nothing. And this patch is has the risks to be wrong. > > > > > > Huh?! Really, stop commenting the stuff you do not understand. > > > > > I'm actually a professional display drivers developer at the downstream > > > > > in the past, despite my contribution to upstream is less. But I believe > > > > > that all panel driver developers know what I'm talking about. So please > > > > > have take a look at my replies. > > > > Most of the interactions you had in this series has been uncalled for. > > > > You might be against a patch, but there's no need to go to such length. > > > > > > > > As far as I'm concerned, this patch is fine to me in itself, and I don't > > > > see anything that would prevent us from merging it. > > > No one is preventing you, as long as don't misunderstanding what other > > > people's technical replies intentionally. I'm just a usual and normal > > > contributor, I hope the world will better than yesterday. > > You should seriously consider your tone when replying then. > > > > > Saying such thing to me may not proper, I guess you may want to talk > > > to peoples who has the push rights > > I think you misunderstood me. My point was that your several rants were > > uncalled for and aren't the kind of things we're doing here. > > > > I know very well how to get a patch merged, thanks. > > > > > just make sure it isn't a insult to the professionalism of drm bridge > > > community itself though. > > I'm not sure why you're bringing the bridge community or its > > professionalism. It's a panel, not a bridge, and I never doubted the > > professionalism of anyone. > > > I means that the code itself could be adopted, as newer and younger > programmer (like Andy) need to be encouraged to contribute. Andy has thousands of commits in Linux. He's *very* far from being a new contributor. > I express no obvious objections, just hints him that something else > probably should also be taken into consideration as well. That might be what you wanted to express, but you definitely didn't express it that way. > On the other hand, we probably should allow other people participate > in discussion so that it is sufficient discussed and ensure that it > won't be reverted by someone in the future for some reasons. Backing > to out case happens here, we may need to move things forward. Therefore, > it definitely deserve to have a try. It is not a big deal even though > it gets reverted someday. > > In the end, I don't mind if you think there is nothing that could > prevent you from merge it, but I still suggest you have a glance at > peoples siting at the Cc list. I'm busy now and I have a lot of other > tasks to do, and may not be able to reply you emails on time. So it up > to you and other maintainers to decide. > Thank you. So far, you're the only one who reviewed those patches. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
