Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190829060550.62095-1-john.stultz@linaro.org>
 <CGME20190829173938epcas3p1276089cb3d6f9813840d1bb6cac8b1da@epcas3p1.samsung.com>
 <CAF6AEGvborwLmjfC6_vgZ-ZbfvF3HEFFyb_NHSLRoYWF35bw+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ebdf3ff5-5a9b-718d-2832-f326138a5b2d@samsung.com> <CAF6AEGtkvRpXSoddjmxer2U6LxnV_SAe+jwE2Ct8B8dDpFy2mA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b925e340-4b6a-fbda-3d8d-5c27204d2814@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <b925e340-4b6a-fbda-3d8d-5c27204d2814@samsung.com>
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:18:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CALAqxLU5Ov+__b5gxnuMxQP1RLjndXkB4jAiGgmb-OMdaKePug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] drm: kirin: Fix dsi probe/attach logic
To:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@siol.net>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Xinliang Liu <z.liuxinliang@hisilicon.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Rongrong Zou <zourongrong@gmail.com>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@thinci.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 6:22 AM Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> wrote:
> On 30.08.2019 19:00, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:52 PM Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> wrote:
> >> Of course it seems you have different opinion what is the right thing in
> >> this case, so if you convince us that your approach is better one can
> >> revert the patch.
> > I guess my strongest / most immediate opinion is to not break other
> > existing adv75xx bridge users.
>
>
> It is pity that breakage happened, and next time we should be more
> strict about testing other platforms, before patch acceptance.
>
> But reverting it now will break also platform which depend on it.

I'm really of no opinion of which approach is better here, but I will
say that when a patch breaks previously working boards, that's a
regression and justifying that some other board is now enabled that
would be broken by the revert (of a patch that is not yet upstream)
isn't really a strong argument.

I'm happy to work with folks to try to fixup the kirin driver if this
patch really is the right approach, but we need someone to do the same
for the db410c, and I don't think its fair to just dump that work onto
folks under the threat of the board breaking.

thanks
-john