[v7 3/7] arm64: defconfig: Enable HIMAX_HX83102 panel

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 6:43 AM Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:55 PM <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 16/05/2024 08:43, cong yang wrote:
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > If it is determined that a separately patch needs to be sent, then I
> > > will remove this patch in V8 series?
> > >
> > > Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> 于2024年5月16日周四 05:28写道：
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 PM <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote:
> > >>>> DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6.
> > >>>> Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also
> > >>>> enable the himax driver.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5 at huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>    arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > >>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > >>>> index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644
> > >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > >>>> @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m
> > >>>>    CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m
> > >>>>    CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m
> > >>>>    CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m
> > >>>> +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m
> > >>>>    CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m
> > >>>>    CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m
> > >>>>    CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m
> > >>>
> > >>> You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer
> > >>> can apply this, probably via the qcom tree.
> > >>
> > >> Really? I always kinda figured that this was a bit like MAINTAINERS
> > >> where it can come through a bunch of different trees. Certainly I've
> > >> landed changes to it before through the drm-misc tree. If that was
> > >> wrong then I'll certainly stop doing it, of course.
> >
> > Yeah we usually don't mess with arch specific defconfig from drm tree
>
> In general I agree that makes sense. In this case, though, the new
> config symbol was introduced in the previous patch and split off an
> existing symbol. Updating "all" of the configs (AKA just arm64) that
> had the old symbol to also have the new symbol seems like the nice
> thing to do and it feels like it makes sense to land in the same tree
> that did the "split" just to cause the least confusion to anyone
> affected.
>
> In any case, if it's going to land in some other tree then I guess the
> question is whether it needs to wait a few revisions to land there or
> if it should land right away. Nobody would get a compile error if it
> landed in a different tree right away since unknown config symbols are
> silently ignored, but it feels a little weird to me.
>
> ...of course, I'm also OK just dropping the config patch. I personally
> don't use the upstream "defconfig". It just seemed courteous to update
> it for those who do.

Hmmm, probably should have put Arnd on this thread. Added now in case
he has any opinions. I also did manage to find when this last came up
where I was involved. At that time Will Deacon (who get_maintainer.pl
reports is the official maintainer of this file) said [1]:

> But yes, although there are a few things I really care about
> in defconfig (e.g. things like page size!), generally speaking we don't
> need to Ack everything that changes in there.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20201112004130.17290-1-dianders@chromium.org/T/