[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHwB_N+foZpCjqUy0dJdS2wBbUjHVRQQP0p7S_eTG1Yrh0bgPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 14:43:15 +0800
From: cong yang <yangcong5@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, sam@...nborg.org, daniel@...ll.ch,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, airlied@...il.com,
dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xuxinxiong@...qin.corp-partner.google.com
Subject: Re: [v7 3/7] arm64: defconfig: Enable HIMAX_HX83102 panel
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@...omium.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@...aro.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@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.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.
>
> -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists