[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uG7FQ3bDWsTxq0n8Osh7jjws5ia3PFJXvDdo=nxKu7+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:41:41 +0100
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"open list:DRM PANEL DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-tfp410: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:40 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:43:20AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), but
> > > works with arbitrary firmware node.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Andrzej, Neil,
> > >
> > > This depends on the new code that can be bound in
> > > ib-fwnode-gpiod-get-index immutable branch of Linus' Walleij tree:
> > >
> > > git pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git ib-fwnode-gpiod-get-index
> > >
> > > I hope that it would be possible to pull in this immutable branch and
> > > not wait until after 5.5 merge window, or, alternatively, merge through
> > > Linus Walleij's tree.
> >
> > Any chance this could be merged, please?
>
> I'm happy to merge it into the GPIO tree if some DRM maintainer can
> provide an ACK.
Ack.
> Getting ACK from DRM people is problematic and a bit of friction in the
> community, DVetter usually advice to seek mutual reviews etc, but IMO
> it would be better if some people felt more compelled to review stuff
> eventually. (And that has the problem that it doesn't scale.)
This has a review already plus if you merge your implied review.
That's more than good enough imo, so not seeing the issue here?
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists