[...]
> > > > > > > > > Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> > > > > > > > > PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> > > > > > > > > heuristics fail.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since only the i915 driver has access to the VBT, this commit renames
> > > > > > > > > the "pwm_backlight" lookup entries for the Crystal Cove PMIC's PWM
> > > > > > > > > controller to "pwm_pmic_backlight" so that the i915 driver can do a
> > > > > > > > > pwm_get() for the right controller depending on the VBT bit, instead of
> > > > > > > > > the i915 driver relying on a "pwm_backlight" lookup getting registered
> > > > > > > > > which magically points to the right controller.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For my own reference:
> > > > > > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As mentioned in the cover-letter, to avoid breaking bi-sectability
> > > > > > > as well as to avoid breaking the intel-gfx CI we need to merge this series
> > > > > > > in one go through one tree. Specifically through the drm-intel tree.
> > > > > > > Is that ok with you ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is ok with you, then you do not have to do anything, I will just push
> > > > > > > the entire series to drm-intel. drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> > > > > > > does not see much changes so I do not expect this to lead to any conflicts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's fine, so long as a minimal immutable pull-request is provided.
> > > > > > Whether it's pulled or not will depend on a number of factors, but it
> > > > > > needs to be an option.
> > > > >
> > > > > The way the drm subsys works that is not really a readily available
> > > > > option. The struct definition which this patch changes a single line in
> > > > > has not been touched since 2015-06-26 so I really doubt we will get a
> > > > > conflict from this.
> > > >
> > > > Always with the exceptions ...
> > > >
> > > > OOI, why does this *have* to go through the DRM tree?
> > >
> > > This patch renames the name used to lookup the pwm controller from
> > > "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_pmic_backlight" because there are 2 possible
> > > pwm controllers which may be used, one in the SoC itself and one
> > > in the PMIC. Which controller should be used is described in a table
> > > in the Video BIOS, so another part of this series adds this code to
> > > the i915 driver:
> > >
> > > - panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_backlight");
> > > + /* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */
> > > + if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) {
> > > + panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_pmic_backlight");
> > > + desc = "PMIC";
> > > + } else {
> > > + panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_soc_backlight");
> > > + desc = "SoC";
> > > + }
> > >
> > > So both not to break bisectability, but also so as to not break the extensive
> > > CI system which is used to test the i915 driver we need the MFD change doing
> > > the rename to go upstrream through the same tree as the i915 change.
> > >
> > > I have even considered just squashing the 2 commits together as having only 1
> > > present, but not the other breaks stuff left and right.
> >
> > That doesn't answer the question.
> >
> > Why do they all *have* to go in via the DRM tree specifically?
>
> 1. As explained these chanegs need to stay together
> 2. This change is primarily a drm/i915 change. Also the i915 code sees lots
> of changes every cycle, where as the change to the mfd code touches a block
> of code which has not been touched since 2015-06-26, so the chance of conflicts
> is much bigger if this goes on through another tree.
>
> I honestly do not see the problem here? Let me reverse the question why should this
> NOT go in through the drm tree?
There isn't a problem with *this* patch. I could say, "sure, take it"
and the chances are everything could be fine from a technical
perspective.
However, I'm taking exception to the fact you think this series is
*special* enough to warrant circumventing the usual way in which we
usually work when dealing with cross-subsystem patch-sets. Something
I personally deal with a lot due to the inherent hierarchical nature
of Multi-Functional Devices.
I'm on the fence on this one. Due to the circumstances surrounding
*this* patch alone, it would be so much easier (for both of us!) to
just Ack the patch and hope no further changes occur which could
potentially cause someone else (you, me, Linus) more work later on.
However, I'm very keen to prevent setting a precedent for this kind of
action, as it's clearly not the right path to take in a vast majority
of cases.
> 1. As explained these chanegs need to stay together
The patch-set would stay together regardless. That's the point of an
immutable branch, it can be taken in by all relevant parties and Git
will just do-the-right-thing.
> 2. This change is primarily a drm/i915 change. Also the i915 code sees lots
> of changes every cycle, where as the change to the mfd code touches a block
> of code which has not been touched since 2015-06-26, so the chance of conflicts
> is much bigger if this goes on through another tree.
This too is irrelevant, since the patch-set could/would go though
both/all trees simultaneously. The way in which we normally work with
other subsystems doesn't involve a gamble over which subsystem is most
likely going to be affected by a merge conflict as you suggest, it
eradicates conflicts for all.
I'm not saying "no" by the way. I just want to find out your
reasons/motivation as to why you're insisting this needs go through
a) a specific tree and b) just one tree. Questions which I am yet to
see a compelling answer.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
