On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 06:14:48PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 04:33:28PM +0100, Michal Wilczynski wrote: > > > > > > On 11/10/25 20:35, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 02:04:34AM +0100, Michal Wilczynski wrote: > > >> This series enables the display subsystem on the StarFive JH7110 SoC. > > >> This hardware has a complex set of dependencies that this series aims to > > >> solve. > > >> > > >> I believe this is a PHY tuning issue that can be fixed in the new > > >> phy-jh7110-inno-hdmi.c driver without changing the overall architecture. > > >> I plan to continue debugging these modes and will submit follow up fixes > > >> as needed. > > >> > > >> The core architectural plumbing is sound and ready for review. > > >> > > >> Notes: > > >> - The JH7110 does not have a centralized MAINTAINERS entry like the > > >> TH1520, and driver maintainership seems fragmented. I have therefore > > >> added a MAINTAINERS entry for the display subsystem and am willing to > > >> help with its maintenance. > > > > > > Yeah, bunch of different folks wrote the drivers, so lots of entries. > > > Pretty much all as you've done here, authors are responsible for the > > > individual components and Emil is the platform maintainer but > > > responsible for most drivers. > > > > > > Do you need any feedback dt wise on the RFC, or is it too likely that > > > we'll both waste our breath if the DRM folks don't approve of your > > > approach for the rest of this series? > > > > Hi Conor, > > > > Thank you for your response. > > > > That's a fair point about the risk of the DRM approach being rejected. > > While I can't be certain, I'm hopeful that part is relatively > > straightforward, as it primarily integrates other recently reviewed > > (though not yet merged) components like the inno-hdmi bridge and dc8200 > > drivers. > > > > To be honest, I was more concerned that the DT part of the series would > > be more problematic. Given that, I would find it very helpful to get > > your feedback on the DT aspects now, if you have the time. > > Right. You'll definitely want some actual DRM people to weigh in though > before making changes, I am really not familiar enough with this type of > hardware to know if the breakdown is correct.
It looks generally sane to me chief, but as I said I am not really familiar enough with this sort of hardware to have a real take on it. Sorry, you'll need to get your affirmation about how you've laid stuff out elsewhere :/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
