Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] Add support for RK3588 DisplayPort Controller

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:05:28AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 09:50:34AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Am 28.08.25 um 00:24 schrieb Dmitry Baryshkov:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 02:39:44PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote:
> > > > From: Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There are two DW DPTX based DisplayPort Controller on rk3588 which
> > > > are compliant with the DisplayPort Specification Version 1.4 with
> > > > the following features:
> > > > 
> > > > * DisplayPort 1.4a
> > > > * Main Link: 1/2/4 lanes
> > > > * Main Link Support 1.62Gbps, 2.7Gbps, 5.4Gbps and 8.1Gbps
> > > > * AUX channel 1Mbps
> > > > * Single Stream Transport(SST)
> > > > * Multistream Transport (MST)
> > > > * Type-C support (alternate mode)
> > > > * HDCP 2.2, HDCP 1.3
> > > > * Supports up to 8/10 bits per color component
> > > > * Supports RBG, YCbCr4:4:4, YCbCr4:2:2, YCbCr4:2:0
> > > > * Pixel clock up to 594MHz
> > > > * I2S, SPDIF audio interface
> > > > 
> > > > The current version of this patch series only supports basic display outputs.
> > > > I conducted tests with DP0 in 1080p and 4K@60 YCbCr4:2:0 modes; the ALT/Type-C
> > > > mode was tested on Rock 5B, DP1 was tested on Rock 5 ITX by Stephen and Piotr.
> > > > HDCP and audio features remain unimplemented.
> > > > For RK3588, it's only support SST, while in the upcoming RK3576, it can support
> > > > MST output.
> > > > 
> > > [skipped changelog]
> > > 
> > > > Andy Yan (10):
> > > >    dt-bindings: display: rockchip: Add schema for RK3588 DPTX Controller
> > > >    drm/bridge: synopsys: Add DW DPTX Controller support library
> > > >    drm/rockchip: Add RK3588 DPTX output support
> > > >    MAINTAINERS: Add entry for DW DPTX Controller bridge
> > > I tried pushing patches 1-4, but got the following error:
> > > 
> > > dim: ERROR: 5a68dcf5837a ("MAINTAINERS: Add entry for DW DPTX Controller bridge"): Mandatory Maintainer Acked-by missing., aborting
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure how to handle MAINTAINERS changes (or whether it's fine for
> > > me or not), so I will probably push patches 1-3 in a few days, if nobody
> > > beats me (or unless somebody points out a correct process for
> > > MAINTAINERS changes).
> > 
> > That warning has been added recently to make sure that patches do not get in
> > without sufficient review. It's overly pedantic, though.
> 
> It's not "overly pedantic", it follows the contribution rules. I'd argue
> that, if anything, we've been overly tolerant with that kind of
> practices.
> 
> We do have a bug with handling MAINTAINERS changes at the moment. But
> everything else shouldn't be ignored: either patch MAINTAINERS to
> reflect the actual contribution path, or get the maintainers Ack.

For me that points out that MAINTAINERS changes should be integrated
into the corresponding driver patch rather than being a separate patch.

> 
> > If you're confident that you have R-bs from enough relevant people,
> > push the patches with 'dim -f' to ignore the warning.
> 
> And let's not just advise that either.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry