[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=V9uMpPbXxoNd2DpvtX=nEb1RFdbZ5bV8ZGhNpOVMJtOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:43:05 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@...el.com>,
Robert Foss <robert.foss@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Move MIPI detach() /
unregister() to detach()
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:53 AM Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com> wrote:
>
>
> W dniu 30.03.2021 o 04:53, Douglas Anderson pisze:
> > The register() / attach() for MIPI happen in the bridge's
> > attach(). That means that the inverse belongs in the bridge's
> > detach().
>
>
> As I commented in previous patch, it would be better to fix mipi/bridge
> registration order in host and this driver.
>
> Have you considered this?
Fair enough. How about I drop this patch at the moment? My series
already has enough stuff in it right now and I don't believe anything
in the series depends on this patch.
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists