linux-kernel - Re: [v7 3/7] arm64: defconfig: Enable HIMAX

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=W0Gq8mkdbF_94=H=G9k6UwjUa43eaxCjU-vZwMxSg+8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 07:09:45 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: cong yang <yangcong5@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>, 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,

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 6:43 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:55 PM <neil.armstrong@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 16/05/2024 08:43, cong yang wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yeah we usually don't mess with arch specific defconfig from drm tree
>
> In general I agree that makes sense. In this case, though, the new
> config symbol was introduced in the previous patch and split off an
> existing symbol. Updating "all" of the configs (AKA just arm64) that
> had the old symbol to also have the new symbol seems like the nice
> thing to do and it feels like it makes sense to land in the same tree
> that did the "split" just to cause the least confusion to anyone
> affected.
>
> In any case, if it's going to land in some other tree then I guess the
> question is whether it needs to wait a few revisions to land there or
> if it should land right away. Nobody would get a compile error if it
> landed in a different tree right away since unknown config symbols are
> silently ignored, but it feels a little weird to me.
>
> ...of course, I'm also OK just dropping the config patch. I personally
> don't use the upstream "defconfig". It just seemed courteous to update
> it for those who do.

Hmmm, probably should have put Arnd on this thread. Added now in case
he has any opinions. I also did manage to find when this last came up
where I was involved. At that time Will Deacon (who get_maintainer.pl
reports is the official maintainer of this file) said [1]:

> But yes, although there are a few things I really care about
> in defconfig (e.g. things like page size!), generally speaking we don't
> need to Ack everything that changes in there.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20201112004130.17290-1-dianders@chromium.org/T/