Hi Simon, On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:03:04AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:55:52AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 09:56:57AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> The LVDS1 encoder must supply a pixel clock to the DU for the DPAD > >>> output when the LVDS0 encoder is used. Enable it despite its output not > >>> being connected. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Changes since v1: > >>> > >>> - Add a comment in the DT to explain why the LVDS1 encoder needs to be > >>> enabled. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> This looks fine to me but I will wait to see if there are other reviews > >> before applying. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Please note that this will likely cause probe failures if applied > > without the driver patches from this series. Would it be OK to merge the > > DT changes through the DRM tree ? > > I'm not sure that the probe failures are a problem unless they move > something that was in a working state to a non-working state. Nonetheless > they are at the very least not very nice. > > I generally shy away from having DT patches merged in other trees > to avoid the chance of merge conflicts (that need to be resolved by Linus). > What is your feeling on the risk of such a conflict? I would have said low, but given that it's too late to get the DT changes in v5.1 anyway, it's no big deal. The driver patches have been merged for v5.1, so could you queue the DT changes for v5.2 ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
