On 10/24/2013 01:54 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
So I think let's keep trying to find the right abstractions to separate
the DSI core and the panel drivers, make it possible to support several
panels with one driver, and make it possible to have independent drivers
for panels that don't fit the assumptions of the generic panel driver.
Does that conflict with your goals? Are we in agreement here?
Definetely we are in agreement and perfectly aligns with my goals.
That's relieving, I'm happy we're on the same page now. :)
Me too :)
But is it okay to work towards pushing sub-encoder based design for
immidiate short term and then work to convert on drm_bridge because I
can see that drm_bridge callbacks will need additions defintely and it
might take some time to get that done. In the meantime can we push
current driver with already suggested changes to get atleast a working
base ?
I'm okay with this. Daniel is pushing for drm_bridge, and I'm also
optimistic about that, but perhaps we have to see what we really need
first. The current sub-encoder model is more flexible for that in the
short term.
However I, and others, will need to know where we are heading, so please
do pay attention to splitting up the patches and explaining why they are
needed. Sometimes it's helpful to provide draft/RFC patches on top just
for that.
I will push updated smaller patches with clear reasoning for them.
Finally, I am glad you're contributing directly to upstream now. It
makes a huge difference in the long run.
Yeah, I wanted to do earlier but sometimes its all matter of bandwidth
and priorities. Hopefully I will be able to continue to do so, now that
I have started.
Thanks for all your inputs.
Regards
Shobhit
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
