From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shobhit Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: Add more dev ops for MIPI sub encoder Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:43:05 +0530 Message-ID: <52690ED1.40301@intel.com> References: <1382358067-5578-1-git-send-email-shobhit.kumar@intel.com> <1382358067-5578-2-git-send-email-shobhit.kumar@intel.com> <874n8a4uv2.fsf@intel.com> <526647B6.9000903@intel.com> <87iowp34jn.fsf@intel.com> <5267C6A7.3080502@intel.com> <87sivs6p9q.fsf@intel.com> <5268D3CF.6050705@intel.com> <87mwlz6pq0.fsf@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33761E6948 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:05:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mwlz6pq0.fsf@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Jani Nikula Cc: vijayakumar.balakrishnan@intel.com, intel-gfx , yogesh.mohan.marimuthu@intel.com List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On 10/24/2013 01:54 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Shobhit Kumar wrote: >> On 10/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> So I think let's keep trying to find the right abstractions to separate >>> the DSI core and the panel drivers, make it possible to support several >>> panels with one driver, and make it possible to have independent drivers >>> for panels that don't fit the assumptions of the generic panel driver. >>> >>> Does that conflict with your goals? Are we in agreement here? >> >> Definetely we are in agreement and perfectly aligns with my goals. > > That's relieving, I'm happy we're on the same page now. :) Me too :) > >> But is it okay to work towards pushing sub-encoder based design for >> immidiate short term and then work to convert on drm_bridge because I >> can see that drm_bridge callbacks will need additions defintely and it >> might take some time to get that done. In the meantime can we push >> current driver with already suggested changes to get atleast a working >> base ? > > I'm okay with this. Daniel is pushing for drm_bridge, and I'm also > optimistic about that, but perhaps we have to see what we really need > first. The current sub-encoder model is more flexible for that in the > short term. > > However I, and others, will need to know where we are heading, so please > do pay attention to splitting up the patches and explaining why they are > needed. Sometimes it's helpful to provide draft/RFC patches on top just > for that. I will push updated smaller patches with clear reasoning for them. > > Finally, I am glad you're contributing directly to upstream now. It > makes a huge difference in the long run. > Yeah, I wanted to do earlier but sometimes its all matter of bandwidth and priorities. Hopefully I will be able to continue to do so, now that I have started. Thanks for all your inputs. Regards Shobhit