Message-ID: <CAEqLBR=jmc1zs75vfVP2b4d4dpLJjNpUX=5W5AYyCtCoLvK59A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:16:50 -0400
From:   Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        Enric Balletbò <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Stéphane Marchesin <marcheu@...omium.org>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/panel: simple: Add ability to override typical timing

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:56 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:56 AM Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 09:39:06AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 1:55 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Douglas.
> > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   /* Only add timings if override was not there or failed to validate */
> > > > > > +   if (num == 0 && panel->desc->num_timings)
> > > > > > +           num = panel_simple_get_timings_modes(panel);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   /*
> > > > > > +    * Only add fixed modes if timings/override added no mode.
> > > > >
> > > > > This part I fail to understand.
> > > > > If we have a panel where we in panel-simple have specified the timings,
> > > > > and done so using display_timing so with proper {min, typ, max} then it
> > > > > should be perfectly legal to specify a more precise variant in the DT
> > > > > file.
> > > > > Or what did I miss here?
> > > >
> > > > Got it now.
> > > > If display_mode is used for timings this is what you call "fixed mode".
> > > > Hmm, if I got confused someone else may also be confused by this naming.
> > >
> > > The name "fixed mode" comes from the old code, though I guess in the
> > > old code it used to refer to a mode that came from either the
> > > display_timing or the display_mode.
> > >
> > > How about if I call it "panel_simple_get_from_fixed_display_mode"?
> > > ...or if you have another suggestion feel free to chime in.
> > What we really want to distingush here is the use of display_mode
> > and display_timings (if I got the names right).
> > That display_mode specify a fixed timing and display_timing specify
> > a valid range is something in the semantics of the two types.
> > So naming that refer to display_mode versus display_timing will make the
> > code simpler to understand. and then a nice comment that when
> > display_mode
> > is used one looses the possibility to use override_mode.
> > That would be fine to have in the struct in the driver.
>
> OK, I can change the names here and try to find a good place to add a comment.
>
>
> > > NOTE: Since this feedback is minor and this patch has been outstanding
> > > for a while (and is blocking other work), I am assuming that the best
> > > path forward is for Heiko to land this patch with Thierry's Ack and
> > > I'll send a follow-up.  Please yell if you disagree.
> > Let's give the patches a spin more as we have passed the possibility for
> > the current merge window.
>
> Any way I can convince you to change your mind here?  There are no
> functional changes requested so far in your feedback and no bugs--it's
> just a few variable names and comments.  By landing the existing
> patches as-is:
>
> 1. We stop spamming all the people CCed on this whole series (which
> includes device tree patches) that might be interested in the series
> as a whole but aren't interested in details.
>
> 2. We can debate the bikeshed-type issues on their own merit and I
> don't have to debate removing existing Acks / Reviewed-by / Tested-by
> tags as I make changes.
>
> 3. Even if it's not a good time to land the patches right now we know
> that these patches will be ready to land as soon as the window opens.
> As I mentioned earlier these patches are blocking other work [1] and
> landing that patch is actually preventing Matthias from submitting
> another series of patches to add support for rk3288-veyron-tiger and
> rk3288-veyron-fievel.  Certainly I know that upstream doesn't make a
> policy of landing things just to suit the timelines of a downstream
> project, but in this case there seems very little downsides to landing
> the existing patches and taking a later cleanup patch.
>

[sending from my @chromium.org address so any appearance of bias is
explicit :) ]

Agree with Doug here, the naming and casting discussion is pretty
subjective and non-functional. We've got an Ack from Thierry and a
Review from Boris (both seasoned drm_panel'ers), this patch has been
sitting in review for a while. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy
of the good.

Sean

>
> > I am on vacation at the moment and thus slow in responses, but will be back
> > at the home office next week and will be more responsive again.
> >
> >         Sam - who is enjoying the alps in Austria
>
> Hope you have had a great vacation!
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190625222629.154619-1-mka@chromium.org
>
> -Doug

Powered by blists - more mailing lists