On 10/12/2015 11:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12.10.2015 11:43, Yakir Yang wrote: >> On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: >>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: >>>>> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from >>>>> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge >>>>> by the video code. >>>>> >>>>> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take >>>>> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk at rock-chips.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> Changes in v6: None >>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", >>>> + &video->h_sync_polarity); >>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", >>>> + &video->v_sync_polarity); >>>> + of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", >>>> + &video->interlaced); >>>> +} >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would >>>> remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect >>>> more comment/reviewed/ack. :) >>> Right. >>> >>> You can send a v7 of only this patch. >>> >>> In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of >>> entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me >>> because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the >>> top of my email list. >> Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the >> previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give >> up this way to send patchset :) >> >>> In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with >>> this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. >> Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous >> format, like: >> >> ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter >> |----> [PATCH v6 01/17] >> |----> [PATCH ......] >> |----> [PATCH v6 05/17] >> |----> [PATCH v7 05/17] >> |----> [PATCH ......] >> |----> [PATCH v6 17/17] >> >> Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with >> RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ? >> >> ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter >> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17] >> |----> [PATCH ......] >> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17] >> |----> [PATCH v7 05/17] >> |----> [PATCH ......] >> |----> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17] >> > No, don't resend everything. I mean in this case with such big patchset > if you want to fix one patch just send one email [PATCH v7 05/17] > chained to proper id (cover letter or v6-05/17). Add a short note that > this is resend of only one patch from the set.
Oh, understand now, just keep this chain-reply no changes for now. ----> [PATCH v4 00/16] Cover letter |----> [PATCH v5 00/17] Covert letter |----> [PATCH ......] | |----> [PATCH v6 00/17] Covert letter |----> [PATCH v6 01/17] |----> [PATCH ......] |----> [PATCH v6 17/17] |----> [PATCH v7 05/17] > Of course you can just wait for some more comments and then send v7 of > everything. I would choice to send it now :) Thanks, - Yakir > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > > >