| Message ID | 1649938766-6768-1-git-send-email-quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for the eDP panel over aux_bus | expand |
Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: > > This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. > > These changes are dependent on the following series: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If not, maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) at the beginning of your series? > Sankeerth Billakanti (4): > drm/msm/dp: Add eDP support via aux_bus > drm/msm/dp: Support only IRQ_HPD and REPLUG interrupts for eDP > drm/msm/dp: wait for hpd high before aux transaction > Support the eDP modes given by panel One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you spot which patch is missing the prefix by looking at the subject line of all 4 patches? ;-)
On 14/04/2022 19:40, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti > <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: >> >> This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. >> >> These changes are dependent on the following series: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* > > You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. > What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not > Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If not, > maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) > at the beginning of your series? No, please do not resend patches. The patches in question are marked as 'Not applicable' as they are really not applicable to Bjorn's tree. It would be better to point to the correct patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/98585/ Note those patches still lack the R-B tag. I can include them anyway, basing on Sankeerth's Tested-by tag, but the formal R-B would also be good. > > >> Sankeerth Billakanti (4): >> drm/msm/dp: Add eDP support via aux_bus >> drm/msm/dp: Support only IRQ_HPD and REPLUG interrupts for eDP >> drm/msm/dp: wait for hpd high before aux transaction >> Support the eDP modes given by panel > > One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just > doesn't belong. Can you spot which patch is missing the prefix by > looking at the subject line of all 4 patches? ;-) :-)
Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-04-14 12:20:31) > On 14/04/2022 19:40, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti > > <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: > >> > >> This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. > >> > >> These changes are dependent on the following series: > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* > > > > You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. > > What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not > > Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If not, > > maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) > > at the beginning of your series? > > No, please do not resend patches. The patches in question are marked as > 'Not applicable' as they are really not applicable to Bjorn's tree. > It would be better to point to the correct patchwork: > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/98585/ > > Note those patches still lack the R-B tag. I can include them anyway, > basing on Sankeerth's Tested-by tag, but the formal R-B would also be good. > Can you resend those as not RFC?
Hi Dmitry On 4/14/2022 12:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-04-14 12:20:31) >> On 14/04/2022 19:40, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti >>> <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. >>>> >>>> These changes are dependent on the following series: >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* >>> >>> You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. >>> What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not >>> Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If not, >>> maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) >>> at the beginning of your series? >> >> No, please do not resend patches. The patches in question are marked as >> 'Not applicable' as they are really not applicable to Bjorn's tree. >> It would be better to point to the correct patchwork: >> >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/98585/ >> >> Note those patches still lack the R-B tag. I can include them anyway, >> basing on Sankeerth's Tested-by tag, but the formal R-B would also be good. >> > > Can you resend those as not RFC? Yes, please resend these, I can ack them. Previously I held off my ack, as kuogee ran into some issues testing them which was later concluded to be a mismatch in QC internal trees due to different versions of the changes.( another reason why we should get these landed ). Now, that Sankeerth has tested these, if you can remove RFC and post them, I can ack the. Thanks Abhinav
On 14/04/2022 23:00, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > Hi Dmitry > > On 4/14/2022 12:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-04-14 12:20:31) >>> On 14/04/2022 19:40, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti >>>> <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. >>>>> >>>>> These changes are dependent on the following series: >>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. >>>> What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not >>>> Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If not, >>>> maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) >>>> at the beginning of your series? >>> >>> No, please do not resend patches. The patches in question are marked as >>> 'Not applicable' as they are really not applicable to Bjorn's tree. >>> It would be better to point to the correct patchwork: >>> >>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/98585/ >>> >>> Note those patches still lack the R-B tag. I can include them anyway, >>> basing on Sankeerth's Tested-by tag, but the formal R-B would also be >>> good. >>> >> >> Can you resend those as not RFC? > > Yes, please resend these, I can ack them. > > Previously I held off my ack, as kuogee ran into some issues testing > them which was later concluded to be a mismatch in QC internal trees due > to different versions of the changes.( another reason why we should get > these landed ). > > Now, that Sankeerth has tested these, if you can remove RFC and post > them, I can ack the. Well, you can ack those patches without them being resent. You have already added your Reviewed-by to first three patches (which were merged during last window).
On 4/14/2022 1:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On 14/04/2022 23:00, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >> Hi Dmitry >> >> On 4/14/2022 12:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-04-14 12:20:31) >>>> On 14/04/2022 19:40, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti >>>>> <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. >>>>>> >>>>>> These changes are dependent on the following series: >>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. >>>>> What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not >>>>> Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If not, >>>>> maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) >>>>> at the beginning of your series? >>>> >>>> No, please do not resend patches. The patches in question are marked as >>>> 'Not applicable' as they are really not applicable to Bjorn's tree. >>>> It would be better to point to the correct patchwork: >>>> >>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/98585/ >>>> >>>> Note those patches still lack the R-B tag. I can include them anyway, >>>> basing on Sankeerth's Tested-by tag, but the formal R-B would also >>>> be good. >>>> >>> >>> Can you resend those as not RFC? >> >> Yes, please resend these, I can ack them. >> >> Previously I held off my ack, as kuogee ran into some issues testing >> them which was later concluded to be a mismatch in QC internal trees >> due to different versions of the changes.( another reason why we >> should get these landed ). >> >> Now, that Sankeerth has tested these, if you can remove RFC and post >> them, I can ack the. > > Well, you can ack those patches without them being resent. You have > already added your Reviewed-by to first three patches (which were merged > during last window). > I thought you might have to rebase them :) that way you could have resent the rebased patch with the RFC tag removed. If you dont, you now have my R-b. Thanks Abhinav >
On 14/04/2022 23:19, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 4/14/2022 1:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On 14/04/2022 23:00, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>> Hi Dmitry >>> >>> On 4/14/2022 12:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>> Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-04-14 12:20:31) >>>>> On 14/04/2022 19:40, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM Sankeerth Billakanti >>>>>> <quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This series adds support for generic eDP panel over aux_bus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These changes are dependent on the following series: >>>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=613654&state=* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're basically depending on the last two patches of that series. >>>>>> What's the plan there? In patchwork they're marked as "Not >>>>>> Applicable". If they're good to go, maybe we should land them? If >>>>>> not, >>>>>> maybe you should include them (with Dmitry as the author, of course) >>>>>> at the beginning of your series? >>>>> >>>>> No, please do not resend patches. The patches in question are >>>>> marked as >>>>> 'Not applicable' as they are really not applicable to Bjorn's tree. >>>>> It would be better to point to the correct patchwork: >>>>> >>>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/98585/ >>>>> >>>>> Note those patches still lack the R-B tag. I can include them anyway, >>>>> basing on Sankeerth's Tested-by tag, but the formal R-B would also >>>>> be good. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Can you resend those as not RFC? >>> >>> Yes, please resend these, I can ack them. >>> >>> Previously I held off my ack, as kuogee ran into some issues testing >>> them which was later concluded to be a mismatch in QC internal trees >>> due to different versions of the changes.( another reason why we >>> should get these landed ). >>> >>> Now, that Sankeerth has tested these, if you can remove RFC and post >>> them, I can ack the. >> >> Well, you can ack those patches without them being resent. You have >> already added your Reviewed-by to first three patches (which were >> merged during last window). >> > I thought you might have to rebase them :) that way you could have > resent the rebased patch with the RFC tag removed. > > If you dont, you now have my R-b. Thank you!