RE: [GIT PULL] exynos-drm-next

[Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa@samsung.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 4:29 PM
> To: Inki Dae; 'Tomasz Figa'; airlied@linux.ie; dri-
> devel@lists.freedesktop.org; 'Marek Szyprowski';
> devicetree@vger.kernel.org; Grant Likely; Rob Herring
> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] exynos-drm-next
> 
> On 04.04.2014 07:34, Inki Dae wrote:
> > Hi Tomasz,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:tomasz.figa@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 2:00 PM
> >> To: inki.dae@samsung.com; airlied@linux.ie; dri-
> >> devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> >> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] exynos-drm-next
> >>
> >> Hi Inki,
> >>
> >> On 03.04.2014 19:34, inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
> >>> Hi Dave,
> >>>      Sorry for late.
> >>>      This pull request includes MIPI-DSI driver, two panel drivers,
> >>>      super device support, and relevant dt bindings.
> >>>
> >>> Summaries:
> >>> - Add MIPI-DSI Driver, and dt bindigs
> >>> - Add S6E8AA0 MIPI-DSI based panel drivers, and dt bindings
> >>> - Add LD9040 parallel panel driver
> >>>     . this driver is placed in drivers/gpu/drm/panel, and it seems
> >>>       to be used for exynos drm as of now,
> >>> - Add super device support, and dt bindings
> >>>     . this patch resolves the probe order issue to sub drivers
> >>>       without specific lists
> >>
> >> I don't think the DT bindings have been Acked by DT maintainers,
> >> which is necessary to merge them.
> >>
> >> Also I believe more discussion is needed on this, but I didn't have
> >> time to comment on this series yet. Please hold off with merging the
> >> supernode series yet.
> >
> > I sent a email about review request to you but I didn't get any answer
> > from you.
> 
> It's been just three days ago and I just didn't find time yet to review

No, the email was just ping. My original RFC patch series had been posted
March 3, about 1 month ago, And for my official patch series, eight days
ago.
So the email I sent three days ago was just a ping that I requested for you
to review the patch series.

> them. I would like to be able to review all the patches straight after
> them being posted, but unfortunately that's not the only thing I have to
> do.
> 

So I think there was no any comments from you for a long time.

> Anyway, a common practice in open source world is to let the patches wait
> on the mailing lists for two weeks for people to find some time to review
> them and only then apply. There might be people that don't work full time
> on this area, but still would be interested to do a review in some free
> time.
> 
> Also, neither version of this series have been posted to linux-samsung-soc
> mailing list, which is also a key to have a broader review. Note that this
> ML is listed in MAINTAINERS file for all kernel files with "exynos" in
> name.
> 
> ARM/S5P EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES
> M:      Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> L:      linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for
non-subscribers)
> L:      linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
> S:      Maintained
> F:      arch/arm/mach-s5p*/
> F:      arch/arm/mach-exynos*/
> N:      exynos
> 
> 
> > And I think super node concept was already accepted, and relevant
> > codes, component framework, has already been merged to mainline. And
> > Linux staging next has already such dt bindings. Please see imx dts
> files.
> 
> Yes, they are, but for other platforms not this particular instance.
> 
> Any new DT bindings introduced are needed to have an ACK from one of DT
> maintainers to be merged, unless you can't get any reply from any of them
> for a longer time, usually 3 weeks from posting the series to be applied.

So should I wait for more times?

> 
> Of course standard pinging rules apply, so you should ping DT maintainers
> first before applying such series.


The email I sent to you three days ago was that.

Thanks,
Inki Dae


> 
> >
> > I hope this time this series would be merged to mainline so that we
> > could go to next step, integrating drm_panel and drm_bridge framework
> > to one integrated drm_bridge. So Can you hurry up to review it a bit?
> > I'll wait for your ack.
> 
> I don't think there is any need to hurry up with this particular series
> for this release. I'd recommend sending a pull request with remaining
> patches separately, as the supernode is not required to make anything
work,
> rather than being just a refactor.
> 
> Best regards,
> Tomasz