[GIT PULL FOR v4.12] Renesas R-Car Gen3 DU HDMI support

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:38:15PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> On Tuesday 04 Apr 2017 17:21:47 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:17:44PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > Hi Dave,
> > > 
> > > The following changes since commit 
> e1b489d207c73e67810659a88c45b8db4bd62773:
> > >   Merge tag 'omapdrm-4.12' of
> > > 
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomba/linux into drm-next
> > > (2017-04-04 05:45:49 +1000)
> > > 
> > > are available in the git repository at:
> > >   git://linuxtv.org/pinchartl/media.git drm/next/du
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to 0dda563e571093f309d597cafaf7dd535496ecfb:
> > >   drm: rcar-du: Add HDMI outputs to R8A7795 device description (2017-04-04
> > > 
> > > 17:04:21 +0300)
> > > 
> > > Note that the series contains 2 drm-panel patches since I need those to
> > > unblock the rest of the rcar-du patches.
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > Jacopo Mondi (1):
> > >       drm: rcar-du: Make sure the VSP is initialized on platforms that
> > >       need it
> > > 
> > > Koji Matsuoka (3):
> > >       drm: rcar-du: Add Gen3 HDMI encoder support
> > >       drm: rcar-du: Add DPLL support
> > >       drm: rcar-du: Add HDMI outputs to R8A7795 device description
> > > 
> > > Laurent Pinchart (17):
> > >       devicetree/bindings: display: Document common panel properties
> > >       devicetree/bindings: display: Add bindings for LVDS panels
> > >       devicetree/bindings: display: Add bindings for two Mitsubishi panels
> > >       drm: Add data transmission order bus flag
> > >       drm: panels: Add LVDS panel driver
> > 
> > Can you please add an entry to MAINTAINERS for this. We've had our
> > differences about this and the corresponding device tree bindings, but
> > it looks as if Rob doesn't have any objections and I've been overruled.
> > However, since I don't know where you want to take this I'm not going
> > to be able to do a good job maintaining it.
> 
> I will do, sorry about missing it.
> 
> We certainly have different opinions on some matters related to panels, but 
> please be assured that I had, and still have, no goal of overruling you for 
> the sake of it. Some people might call me a utopian, but I believe 
> collaboration is much better than confrontation :-) I would rather work with 
> you on improving panel support in the kernel than working against each other.

Long term it might be good to group-maintain drm_panel within drm-misc.
But we're still figuring this out, and e.g. for drm_bridge (which is
similar situation, but with bigger drivers and more people) we're stil in
the process of figuring out how to best run things. And who all
might/should be listed as reviewers and who should all have commit rights.

Maybe once that has settled a bit more (in 1-2 releases perhaps) we could
try to get a drm_panel group up, maybe together with a bit a discussion
about what drm_panel is all about? At least looking back at some of the
past discussions, slightly misalignment on goals seems like part of the
reasons for disagreement here.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch