From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:52:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/3] DRM: Armada: Add Armada DRM driver In-Reply-To: References: <20130629225210.GF3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130630115941.GG18285@phenom.ffwll.local> <20130630125238.GH3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <51D14333.40307@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/01/13 02:01, Dave Airlie wrote: > how about instead of writing: > "However, at least I've taken the time to_think_ about what I'm doing > and realise that there_is_ scope here for the DRM core to improve, > rather than burying this stuff deep inside my driver like everyone else > has. That's no reason to penalise patches from the "good guys" who think" > > you go with > "I noticed this piece of functionality could be refactored, here is a > patch adding them to > the core, does anyone think its a good idea?" Dave, at least on this point I do share Russell's impression. I've sent bunch of patches improving TDA998x and DRM+DT: - TDA998x irq handling - ignored - TDA998x sync fix - ignored - Fix drm I2C slave encoder probing I am aware that this is not an easy job nor one you get much appreciation for. But, back when TDA998x driver was published, all my comments were basically answered with "Oh, I know. Maybe someday somebody will fix it". I am not being paid for any of this, but have a strong intrinsic motivation here. But I am loosing interest in sending fixes for DRM stuff because my (personal) impression is the same Russell has: Depending on who sends patches, they get merged independent of how broken they are - others are discussed to death. Sebastian