[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range

Yakir Yang
2015-10-12T04:09:25Z

On 10/12/2015 11:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12.10.2015 11:43, Yakir Yang wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote:
>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote:
>>>>> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from
>>>>> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge
>>>>> by the video code.
>>>>>
>>>>> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take
>>>>> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes in v6: None
>>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high",
>>>> + &video->h_sync_polarity);
>>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high",
>>>> + &video->v_sync_polarity);
>>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced",
>>>> + &video->interlaced);
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would
>>>> remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect
>>>> more comment/reviewed/ack. :)
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> You can send a v7 of only this patch.
>>>
>>> In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of
>>> entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me
>>> because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the
>>> top of my email list.
>> Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the
>> previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give
>> up this way to send patchset :)
>>
>>> In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with
>>> this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter.
>> Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous
>> format, like:
>>
>> ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter
>> |----> [PATCH v6 01/17]
>> |----> [PATCH ......]
>> |----> [PATCH v6 05/17]
>> |----> [PATCH v7 05/17]
>> |----> [PATCH ......]
>> |----> [PATCH v6 17/17]
>>
>> Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with
>> RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ?
>>
>> ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter
>> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17]
>> |----> [PATCH ......]
>> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17]
>> |----> [PATCH v7 05/17]
>> |----> [PATCH ......]
>> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17]
>>
> No, don't resend everything. I mean in this case with such big patchset
> if you want to fix one patch just send one email [PATCH v7 05/17]
> chained to proper id (cover letter or v6-05/17). Add a short note that
> this is resend of only one patch from the set.

Oh, understand now, just keep this chain-reply no changes for now.

----> [PATCH v4 00/16] Cover letter
|----> [PATCH v5 00/17] Covert letter
|----> [PATCH ......]
|
|----> [PATCH v6 00/17] Covert letter
|----> [PATCH v6 01/17]
|----> [PATCH ......]
|----> [PATCH v6 17/17]
|----> [PATCH v7 05/17]

> Of course you can just wait for some more comments and then send v7 of
> everything.

I would choice to send it now :)

Thanks,
- Yakir

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
>