Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] phy: Add configuration interface for MIPI D-PHY devices

[Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>]

Hi,

On 06/02/19 5:55 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 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.

Sure. Dropped patches 4 and 5 from my tree.

Thanks
Kishon