Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] Move device tree graph parsing helpers to drivers/of

Philipp Zabel
2014-03-06T16:21:36Z

Am Donnerstag, den 06.03.2014, 16:47 +0100 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki:
> On 06/03/14 16:17, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:16:57 +0000
> > Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> escreveu:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:42:34PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> >>> > > Am Mittwoch, den 05.03.2014, 13:35 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
[...]
> >>>> > > > So, as I've pointed out, I don't agree with the API, as it's too limited
> >>>> > > > and I can't use it, but as this series is (mostly) about moving the
> >>>> > > > current API to a common place, it's fine for me.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Acked-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thanks. I'll be happy to help expanding the API to parse ports
> >>> > > individually, once this gets accepted.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Mauro, Guennadi, are you fine with how this turned out? I'd like to get
> >>> > > your acks again, for the changed location.
> >
> > From my side, there's nothing on such code that is V4L2 specific.
> > Moving it to drivers/of makes sense on my eyes.
> >
> > Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@samsung.com>
>
> I'm OK with patches 1...5, 8, so for these:
>
> Acked-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
>
> Regarding the simplified version of the binding, I thought we should
> leave 'port' instead of 'endpoint' node. This could cover more hardware
> configurations. Are there any users of this simplified binding queued
> for v3.15 ? If not, perhaps we can postpone it and discuss it a bit more
> (sorry, couldn't find time to comment on that earlier) ?

Since Tomi needs the separate port/endpoint iteration anyway,
postponing the simple bindings shouldn't hurt. I'll (re)submit them
together in a second series.

> >> > I'll need those acks before I can even think about queuing up the
> >> > imx-drm bits.
> >> >
> >> > Another way to deal with this is if this gets pulled into the V4L tree
> >> > from Philipp's git tree, I can also pull that in myself. What mustn't
> >> > happen is for these to be committed independently as patches.
> >
> > If everyone agrees, I actually prefer have this patch applied on my tree,
> > in order to avoid some potential merge conflicts at the merge window,
> > as we might have other drivers and changes there touching on those API
> > calls (I'm aware of a series of patches from Sylwester with some DT
> > stuff on it. Not sure if it would be affected by such changes or not).
>
> Yes, it's going to conflict with my patch series. I thought it could be
> put onto a stable a topic branch, e.g. at git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git,
> which could be then pulled into the media master branch and anywhere
> else it is needed ?

Mauro, are you ok with handling the conflict in the merge, or should I
rebase on top of the media tree after you merged Sylwester's changes?

regards
Philipp