Hi Kishon,

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:43:12PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On 05/02/19 2:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:33:31PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21/01/19 9:15 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Here is a set of patches to allow the phy framework consumers to test and
> >>> apply runtime configurations.
> >>>
> >>> This is needed to support more phy classes that require tuning based on
> >>> parameters depending on the current use case of the device, in addition to
> >>> the power state management already provided by the current functions.
> >>>
> >>> A first test bed for that API are the MIPI D-PHY devices. There's a number
> >>> of solutions that have been used so far to support these phy, most of the
> >>> time being an ad-hoc driver in the consumer.
> >>>
> >>> That approach has a big shortcoming though, which is that this is quite
> >>> difficult to deal with consumers integrated with multiple variants of phy,
> >>> of multiple consumers integrated with the same phy.
> >>>
> >>> The latter case can be found in the Cadence DSI bridge, and the CSI
> >>> transceiver and receivers. All of them are integrated with the same phy, or
> >>> can be integrated with different phy, depending on the implementation.
> >>>
> >>> I've looked at all the MIPI DSI drivers I could find, and gathered all the
> >>> parameters I could find. The interface should be complete, and most of the
> >>> drivers can be converted in the future. The current set converts two of
> >>> them: the above mentionned Cadence DSI driver so that the v4l2 drivers can
> >>> use them, and the Allwinner MIPI-DSI driver.
> >>
> >> Can the PHY changes go independently of the consumer drivers? or else I'll need
> >> ACKs from the GPU MAINTAINER.
> > 
> > Maxime is a gpu maintainer, so you're all good :-)
> 
> cool.. I've merged all the patches except drm/bridge.
> 
> Please see if everything looks okay once it shows up in phy -next (give a day)

Thanks!

If possible (and if that's still an option), it would be better if the
sun6i related patches (patches 4 and 5) would go through the DRM tree
(with your Acked-by of course).

We have a number of patches in flight that have a decent chance to
conflict with patch 4.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com