> Yes, I had a comment on the naming in that patch. Never the less, I think if > we > don't need to "overwrite" the value, we should use just one struct for the > values instead of copying them to the different .c files and give them SoC > specific names. I don't have a very strong opinion about this, and in fact that is how v1 of the patch worked, but Chun-Kuang specifically suggested moving that struct into the .c files a few versions back. I think it makes sense if we expect additional skew between the different components and what pixel formats they support.
- [PATCH 0/3 v7] drm/mediatek: Add support for 10-bit overl... Justin Green
- [PATCH 1/3] drm/mediatek: Refactor pixel format logi... Justin Green
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/mediatek: Refactor pixel for... Matthias Brugger
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/mediatek: Refactor pixel... Justin Green
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/mediatek: Refactor p... Matthias Brugger
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/mediatek: Refac... Justin Green
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/mediatek: R... Matthias Brugger
- [PATCH 2/3] drm/mediatek: Add support for AR30 and B... Justin Green
- [PATCH 3/3] drm/mediatek: Enable AR30 and BA30 overl... Justin Green
- Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/mediatek: Enable AR30 and BA... Matthias Brugger
