On 06/03/14 17:21, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 06.03.2014, 16:47 +0100 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki: >> On 06/03/14 16:17, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Em Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:16:57 +0000 >>> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:42:34PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: >>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 05.03.2014, 13:35 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen: > [...] >>>>>>>>> So, as I've pointed out, I don't agree with the API, as it's too limited >>>>>>>>> and I can't use it, but as this series is (mostly) about moving the >>>>>>>>> current API to a common place, it's fine for me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll be happy to help expanding the API to parse ports >>>>>>> individually, once this gets accepted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mauro, Guennadi, are you fine with how this turned out? I'd like to get >>>>>>> your acks again, for the changed location. >>> >>> From my side, there's nothing on such code that is V4L2 specific. >>> Moving it to drivers/of makes sense on my eyes. >>> >>> Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I'm OK with patches 1...5, 8, so for these: >> >> Acked-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Regarding the simplified version of the binding, I thought we should >> leave 'port' instead of 'endpoint' node. This could cover more hardware >> configurations. Are there any users of this simplified binding queued >> for v3.15 ? If not, perhaps we can postpone it and discuss it a bit more >> (sorry, couldn't find time to comment on that earlier) ? > > Since Tomi needs the separate port/endpoint iteration anyway, > postponing the simple bindings shouldn't hurt. I'll (re)submit them > together in a second series. Ok, thanks. >>>>> I'll need those acks before I can even think about queuing up the >>>>> imx-drm bits. >>>>> >>>>> Another way to deal with this is if this gets pulled into the V4L tree >>>>> from Philipp's git tree, I can also pull that in myself. What mustn't >>>>> happen is for these to be committed independently as patches. >>> >>> If everyone agrees, I actually prefer have this patch applied on my tree, >>> in order to avoid some potential merge conflicts at the merge window, >>> as we might have other drivers and changes there touching on those API >>> calls (I'm aware of a series of patches from Sylwester with some DT >>> stuff on it. Not sure if it would be affected by such changes or not). >> >> Yes, it's going to conflict with my patch series. I thought it could be >> put onto a stable a topic branch, e.g. at git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git, >> which could be then pulled into the media master branch and anywhere >> else it is needed ? > > Mauro, are you ok with handling the conflict in the merge, or should I > rebase on top of the media tree after you merged Sylwester's changes? I could rebase and resolve any conflicts before sending my pull request to Mauro. I don't think it's a good idea to rebase this series onto the media tree, since it is touching drivers/of. -- Regards, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
