Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] MAINTAINERS: add entry for tidss

From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Jyri Sarha <jsarha@ti.com>
Cc: <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<yamonkar@cadence.com>, <praneeth@ti.com>, <sjakhade@cadence.com>,
	<robh+dt@kernel.org>, <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
	<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>, <subhajit_paul@ti.com>,
	<sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] MAINTAINERS: add entry for tidss
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:17:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0acedebf-25d9-6ae2-1307-8f764af449af@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191213103024.GH624164@phenom.ffwll.local>

Hi Daniel,

On 13/12/2019 12:30, Daniel Vetter wrote:

>> +DRM DRIVERS FOR TI KEYSTONE
>> +M:	Jyri Sarha <jsarha@ti.com>
>> +M:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
>> +L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> +S:	Maintained
>> +F:	drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/
>> +F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ti/ti,k2g-dss.yaml
>> +F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ti/ti,am65x-dss.yaml
>> +F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ti/ti,j721e-dss.yaml
>> +T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
> 
> Is the plan to also move other TI drivers over (like tilcdc) or just an
> experiment to see what happens? Asking since if eventually omapdrm moves
> that might be a bit much (or at least needs a discussion first).

Hmm, yes, I think we should have a plan for these.

tilcdc: small, old driver, and I don't see much changes for it. The HW is very different from the 
ones supported by omapdrm and tidss (the two of which have many commonalities). I think drm-misc is 
fine for tilcdc.

omapdrm: big changes going on for now, but after the rewrite to get rid of omapdrm specific drivers 
is done, I expect the patch count to drop, as the HW is "legacy".

tidss: the "new" driver, which should get most attention in the future (after omapdrm rewrite).

All in all, sometimes there have been very few patches for many months, and then sometimes there's a 
big series.

I haven't seen a need to have a maintained branch for omapdrm, as multiple people working on 
conflicting items has been very rare (there aren't that many people working on omapdrm). So I've 
picked patches to my private branch, which I have rebased as needed. And then I've either pushed via 
drm-misc if there's just a few patches, or sent a pull request if there's a lot.

Is such a mixed model ok?

I'm not sure how much is too much for drm-misc, but probably omapdrm and tidss combined (if pushing 
everything always via drm-misc) is a bit too much. So perhaps a maintained TI tree would be an 
option too, and pushing everything for omapdrm and tidss via that tree.

I'm fine with all options, so I think we can go with whatever is most acceptable from DRM maintainer 
point of view.

  Tomi

-- 
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki