On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, "Srinivas, Vidya" <vidya.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks Jani. I will rebase and re-submit and also to remove drm_panel > interface dependency, I am planning to create panel sequence callbacks > in intel_dsi structure itself. Is this approach okay? I think that's unnecessary overhead. I've come to think we should just do what Hans suggested in his patch [1]. It's easiest, and we don't really benefit anything from the drm_panel interface or function pointer chasing. Hans, do you think you'll have the time or motivation to refresh your series, or should we just let Vidya do this? As an added difficulty, there's Madhav doing the Geminilake enabling at the same time, and these two/three series [2][3][4] are bound to conflict to some extent. BR, Jani. [1] http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20161201202925.12220-10-hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx [2] http://mid.mail-archive.com/20161201202925.12220-1-hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx [3] http://mid.mail-archive.com/1486551058-22596-1-git-send-email-vidya.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx [4] http://mid.mail-archive.com/1487335415-14766-1-git-send-email-madhav.chauhan@xxxxxxxxx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
