[PATCH v3 0/7] media/drm: renesas: Add new pixel formats

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:38:25 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com> escreveu:

> Hi Tomi,
> 
> (CC'ing Mauro and Hans)
> 
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 04:25:37PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 26/12/2022 16:56, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > > Hi Tomi,
> > > 
> > > (CC'ing Daniel and Dave)
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:24:41AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:  
> > >> From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen at ideasonboard.com>
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> These add new pixel formats for Renesas V3U and V4H SoCs.
> > >>
> > >> As the display pipeline is split between DRM and V4L2 components, this
> > >> series touches both subsystems. I'm sending all these together to
> > >> simplify review. If needed, I can later split this to V4L2 and DRM
> > >> parts, of which the V4L2 part needs to be merged first.  
> > > 
> > > As the changes on the DRM side are small and shouldn't conflict with
> > > anything else queued for v6.3, it would be easier to merge the whole
> > > series through the media tree. Daniel, Dave, would you be OK with that ?
> > > If so, could you please ack patches 6/7 and 7/7 ?  
> > 
> > Note that these patches depend on the two DRM driver patches in "[PATCH 
> > v5 0/7] Renesas V4H DSI & DP output support", which are not very small 
> > (but still not big).  
> 
> Good point. I'm thus leaning more towards merging this through the DRM
> tree then. Mauro, can we get your ack on the V4L2 part of this series ?
> We'll create a stable branch based on v6.2-rc1 in case it also need to
> be merged in the media tree due to last minute conflicts (I'm mainly
> thinking about the new formats).

Feel free to merge the V4L2 patches via DRM tree with my ack:

Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab at kernel.org>

> 
> Hans, as there won't be a pull request through the media tree, if you
> want to review the new formats, now would be a good time.
> 
> > I don't think there's a compile-time dependency between the DRM and V4L2 
> > parts, but there's a functional side dependency, so it would be nice to 
> > merge these via a single tree. I can't say if DRM or V4L2 tree is 
> > easier, but I don't expect conflicts either way.  
> 



Thanks,
Mauro