Hi Frank,

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 22:23:20 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 02/22/18 05:13, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This patch series addresses a design mistake that dates back from the
> > initial DU support. Support for the LVDS encoders, which are IP cores
> > separate from the DU, was bundled in the DU driver. Worse, both the DU
> > and LVDS were described through a single DT node.
> > 
> > To fix the, patches 1/4 and 2/4 define new DT bindings for the LVDS
> > encoders, and deprecate their description inside the DU bindings. To
> > retain backward compatibility with existing DT, patch 3/4 then patch the
> > device tree at runtime to convert the legacy bindings to the new ones.
> > 
> > With the DT side addressed, patch 4/4 converts the LVDS support code to a
> > separate bridge driver.
> > 
> > I decided to go for live DT patching in patch 3/4 because implementing
> > support for both the legacy and new bindings in the driver would have been
> > very intrusive, and prevented further cleanups. This version relies more
> > heavily on overlays to avoid touching the internals of the OF core
> > compared to v2, even if manual fixes to the device tree are still needed.
> > 
> > As all the patches but the last one have been acked, I plan to send a pull
> > request by the end of the week if no new issue is discovered.
> > 
> > Compared to v5, I've dropped the OF changeset halpers series as Frank
> > raised concerns about hidding it in the middle of a driver patch series.
> > I've thus copied the implementation of of_changeset_add_property_copy()
> > in the driver to avoid blocking this series. The function arguments are
> > identical, so when the OF changeset helpers will land it will be very
> > easy to drop the private copy and use the
> > of_changeset_add_property_copy() helper.
> Thank you Laurent.
> My issues with that are procedural, and I'll reply later about this in the
> v4 patch thread, where I raised the issue.  (For the peanut gallery, I
> replied in thread v4 _after_ Laurent sent v5, so Laurent did not ignore
> me in v5.)

I would have waited for your ack anyway :-)

> My technical comments are more relevent than my process comments, in terms
> of helping Laurent get his driver submitted, so I will delay the process
> comments.

Thank you. 

> My technical comments will be in reply to patch 3/4.


Laurent Pinchart

Reply via email to