Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/mediatek/hdmi: Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args

AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
2025-01-13T15:50:36Z

Il 13/01/25 15:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 13/01/2025 15:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/01/2025 14:58, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>> Il 13/01/25 14:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>>> On 13/01/2025 13:41, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>>> Il 12/01/25 14:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>>>>> Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args() which is a wrapper over
>>>>>> syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() combined with getting the syscon
>>>>>> argument. Except simpler code this annotates within one line that given
>>>>>> phandle has arguments, so grepping for code would be easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is also no real benefit in printing errors on missing syscon
>>>>>> argument, because this is done just too late: runtime check on
>>>>>> static/build-time data. Dtschema and Devicetree bindings offer the
>>>>>> static/build-time check for this already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with this change but can you please rebase it over [1]?
>>>>>
>>>>> The same code got migrated to mtk_hdmi_common.c instead :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250108112744.64686-1-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com
>>>> My is 2-patch cleanup, your is 34 patch rework and new features with
>>>> existing build reports, so rebase is not reasonable. It would make this
>>>> 2-patch cleanup wait for many cycles.
>>>>
>>> If adding the `#include <linux/bitfield.h>` line to a file would take
>>> *many cycles*, that'd be a bit weird, wouldn't it? :-)
>> It's not about include, it is about rebase. If I rebase on 34-patchset,
>> that's my dependency and this work cannot be merged before yours is.
>>
>> And yours already have kbuild reports, so there will be v5, maybe v6 etc.
>
>
> Although "NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!" was removed, but its spirit is
> kind of still valid and requesting to rebase cleanups on top of patch
> bombs with new features is just not reasonable.
>

I understand Krzysztof, but since my 34-patchset should be ready and I don't
expect to send any v6 for how it is right now, your patch would make it
necessary to send yet another patchbomb on my side... we're kind-of in the
same situation here, and I feel like we're making a big issue out of something
that should not really be a problem.

I'm sorry about this situation, and I feel like this doesn't really depend
on me, as much as it doesn't really depend on you... let's just see what CK
thinks about this, or else, I don't know how to make this easier on all of
us - me, you and the maintainer.

If it felt like me being rude in any way, that wasn't my intention, btw.

I can offer to rebase this patch on my own keeping your authorship, if that
makes things easier.

Cheers,
Angelo