Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1552477 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG Decoder

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG  Decoder Rick Chang <rick.chang@mediatek.com> - 2017-01-06 03:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG  Decoder Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> - 2017-01-09 12:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG  Decoder Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 19:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG  Decoder Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 19:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG  Decoder Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com> - 2017-01-10 02:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG  Decoder Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 16:10 +0100

#1552477 — Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm: dts: mt2701: Add node for Mediatek JPEG Decoder

Hi Hans,

The dependence on [1] has been merged in 4.10, but [2] has not.Do you have 
any idea about this patch series? Should we wait for [2] or we could merge
the source code and dt-binding first?

Best Regards,
Rick

On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 17:43 +0800, Rick Chang wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 09:54 +0800, Rick Chang wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 13:43 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > On 22/11/16 04:21, Rick Chang wrote:
> > > > Hi Hans,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 15:51 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > >> On 17/11/16 04:38, Rick Chang wrote:
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Rick Chang <rick.chang@mediatek.com>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Minghsiu Tsai <minghsiu.tsai@mediatek.com>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>> This patch depends on:
> > > >>>   CCF "Add clock support for Mediatek MT2701"[1]
> > > >>>   iommu and smi "Add the dtsi node of iommu and smi for mt2701"[2]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2016-October/007271.html
> > > >>> [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9164013/
> > > >>
> > > >> I assume that 1 & 2 will appear in 4.10? So this patch needs to go in
> > > >> after the
> > > >> other two are merged in 4.10?
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> 	Hans
> > > >
> > > > [1] will appear in 4.10, but [2] will appear latter than 4.10.So this
> > > > patch needs to go in after [1] & [2] will be merged in 4.11.
> > > 
> > > So what should I do? Merge the driver for 4.11 and wait with this patch
> > > until [2] is merged in 4.11? Does that sound reasonable?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > 	Hans
> > 
> > What do you think about this? You merge the driver first and I send this
> > patch again after [1] & [2] is merged.
> 
> BTW, to prevent merging conflict, the dtsi should be merged by mediatek
> SoC maintainer, Matthias.I think we can only take care on the driver
> part at this moment.
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1554238

Hi Rick,

On 01/06/2017 03:34 AM, Rick Chang wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
> The dependence on [1] has been merged in 4.10, but [2] has not.Do you have 
> any idea about this patch series? Should we wait for [2] or we could merge
> the source code and dt-binding first?

Looking at [2] I noticed that the last comment was July 4th. What is the reason
it hasn't been merged yet?

If I know [2] will be merged for 4.11, then I am fine with merging this media
patch series. The dependency of this patch on [2] is something Mauro can handle.

If [2] is not merged for 4.11, then I think it is better to wait until it is
merged.

Regards,

	Hans

> 
> Best Regards,
> Rick
> 
> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 17:43 +0800, Rick Chang wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 09:54 +0800, Rick Chang wrote:
>>> Hi Hans,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 13:43 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/16 04:21, Rick Chang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 15:51 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/11/16 04:38, Rick Chang wrote:
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rick Chang <rick.chang@mediatek.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Minghsiu Tsai <minghsiu.tsai@mediatek.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This patch depends on:
>>>>>>>   CCF "Add clock support for Mediatek MT2701"[1]
>>>>>>>   iommu and smi "Add the dtsi node of iommu and smi for mt2701"[2]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2016-October/007271.html
>>>>>>> [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9164013/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume that 1 & 2 will appear in 4.10? So this patch needs to go in
>>>>>> after the
>>>>>> other two are merged in 4.10?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] will appear in 4.10, but [2] will appear latter than 4.10.So this
>>>>> patch needs to go in after [1] & [2] will be merged in 4.11.
>>>>
>>>> So what should I do? Merge the driver for 4.11 and wait with this patch
>>>> until [2] is merged in 4.11? Does that sound reasonable?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> 	Hans
>>>
>>> What do you think about this? You merge the driver first and I send this
>>> patch again after [1] & [2] is merged.
>>
>> BTW, to prevent merging conflict, the dtsi should be merged by mediatek
>> SoC maintainer, Matthias.I think we can only take care on the driver
>> part at this moment.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1554606

On 09/01/17 12:29, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> On 01/06/2017 03:34 AM, Rick Chang wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> The dependence on [1] has been merged in 4.10, but [2] has not.Do you have
>> any idea about this patch series? Should we wait for [2] or we could merge
>> the source code and dt-binding first?
>
> Looking at [2] I noticed that the last comment was July 4th. What is the reason
> it hasn't been merged yet?
>
> If I know [2] will be merged for 4.11, then I am fine with merging this media
> patch series. The dependency of this patch on [2] is something Mauro can handle.
>
> If [2] is not merged for 4.11, then I think it is better to wait until it is
> merged.
>

I can't take [2] because there is no scpsys in the dts present. It seems 
that it got never posted.

Rick can you please follow-up with James and provide a patch which adds 
a scpsys node to the mt2701.dtsi?

Thanks,
Matthias

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1554607

On 09/01/17 19:45, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
>
> On 09/01/17 12:29, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Hi Rick,
>>
>> On 01/06/2017 03:34 AM, Rick Chang wrote:
>>> Hi Hans,
>>>
>>> The dependence on [1] has been merged in 4.10, but [2] has not.Do you
>>> have
>>> any idea about this patch series? Should we wait for [2] or we could
>>> merge
>>> the source code and dt-binding first?
>>
>> Looking at [2] I noticed that the last comment was July 4th. What is
>> the reason
>> it hasn't been merged yet?
>>
>> If I know [2] will be merged for 4.11, then I am fine with merging
>> this media
>> patch series. The dependency of this patch on [2] is something Mauro
>> can handle.
>>
>> If [2] is not merged for 4.11, then I think it is better to wait until
>> it is
>> merged.
>>
>
> I can't take [2] because there is no scpsys in the dts present. It seems
> that it got never posted.
>
> Rick can you please follow-up with James and provide a patch which adds
> a scpsys node to the mt2701.dtsi?
>

Ah I forgot, dts patches should go through my tree, so Hans please don't 
merge this patch. Bindings should go through your branch though.

Thanks,
Matthias

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1554853

Hi Matthias,

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 19:45 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> 
> On 09/01/17 12:29, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > On 01/06/2017 03:34 AM, Rick Chang wrote:
> >> Hi Hans,
> >>
> >> The dependence on [1] has been merged in 4.10, but [2] has not.Do you have
> >> any idea about this patch series? Should we wait for [2] or we could merge
> >> the source code and dt-binding first?
> >
> > Looking at [2] I noticed that the last comment was July 4th. What is the reason
> > it hasn't been merged yet?
> >
> > If I know [2] will be merged for 4.11, then I am fine with merging this media
> > patch series. The dependency of this patch on [2] is something Mauro can handle.
> >
> > If [2] is not merged for 4.11, then I think it is better to wait until it is
> > merged.
> >
> 
> I can't take [2] because there is no scpsys in the dts present. It seems 
> that it got never posted.
> 
> Rick can you please follow-up with James and provide a patch which adds 
> a scpsys node to the mt2701.dtsi?
> 

James sent three MT2701 dts patches [1] two weeks ago, these three
patches include scpsys node. Please take a reference. And We will send
new MT2701 ionmmu/smi dtsi node patch base on [1] later, thus you can
accept and merge to 4.11.

[1]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9489991/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9489985/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9489989/

Thanks,
Eddie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1558462

Hi James,

On 10/01/17 02:28, Eddie Huang wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 19:45 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>
>> On 09/01/17 12:29, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> Hi Rick,
>>>
>>> On 01/06/2017 03:34 AM, Rick Chang wrote:
>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>
>>>> The dependence on [1] has been merged in 4.10, but [2] has not.Do you have
>>>> any idea about this patch series? Should we wait for [2] or we could merge
>>>> the source code and dt-binding first?
>>>
>>> Looking at [2] I noticed that the last comment was July 4th. What is the reason
>>> it hasn't been merged yet?
>>>
>>> If I know [2] will be merged for 4.11, then I am fine with merging this media
>>> patch series. The dependency of this patch on [2] is something Mauro can handle.
>>>
>>> If [2] is not merged for 4.11, then I think it is better to wait until it is
>>> merged.
>>>
>>
>> I can't take [2] because there is no scpsys in the dts present. It seems
>> that it got never posted.
>>
>> Rick can you please follow-up with James and provide a patch which adds
>> a scpsys node to the mt2701.dtsi?
>>
>
> James sent three MT2701 dts patches [1] two weeks ago, these three
> patches include scpsys node. Please take a reference. And We will send
> new MT2701 ionmmu/smi dtsi node patch base on [1] later, thus you can
> accept and merge to 4.11.
>

Thanks for the clarification. I pulled all this patches into 
v4.10-next/dts32

Hans will you take v9 of this patch set?
Then I'll take the dts patch.

Regards,
Matthias

> [1]
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9489991/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9489985/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9489989/
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web