On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 20-02-17 12:00, Jani Nikula wrote: >> 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. > > I've my series rebased in a personal repo. As I was planning on resubmitting > it at some point in the future. I can send out a new version right now if > you want ... Please do! BR, Jani. > > Regards, > > Hans -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
