Re: [v1,1/3] drm/panel: ili9341: Correct use of device property APIs

[Maxime Ripard]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:54:39AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2024/4/29 19:55, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 01:57:46PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > On 2024/4/26 14:23, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:43:18AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > > > On 2024/4/26 03:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:08:16AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2024/4/25 22:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > It seems driver missed the point of proper use of device property APIs.
> > > > > > > > Correct this by updating headers and calls respectively.
> > > > > > > You are using the 'seems' here exactly saying that you are not 100% sure.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please allow me to tell you the truth: This patch again has ZERO effect.
> > > > > > > It fix nothing. And this patch is has the risks to be wrong.
> > > > > > Huh?! Really, stop commenting the stuff you do not understand.
> > > > > I'm actually a professional display drivers developer at the downstream
> > > > > in the past, despite my contribution to upstream is less. But I believe
> > > > > that all panel driver developers know what I'm talking about. So please
> > > > > have take a look at my replies.
> > > > Most of the interactions you had in this series has been uncalled for.
> > > > You might be against a patch, but there's no need to go to such length.
> > > > 
> > > > As far as I'm concerned, this patch is fine to me in itself, and I don't
> > > > see anything that would prevent us from merging it.
> > > No one is preventing you, as long as don't misunderstanding what other
> > > people's technical replies intentionally. I'm just a usual and normal
> > > contributor, I hope the world will better than yesterday.
> > You should seriously consider your tone when replying then.
> > 
> > > Saying such thing to me may not proper, I guess you may want to talk
> > > to peoples who has the push rights
> > I think you misunderstood me. My point was that your several rants were
> > uncalled for and aren't the kind of things we're doing here.
> > 
> > I know very well how to get a patch merged, thanks.
> > 
> > > just make sure it isn't a insult to the professionalism of drm bridge
> > > community itself though.
> > I'm not sure why you're bringing the bridge community or its
> > professionalism. It's a panel, not a bridge, and I never doubted the
> > professionalism of anyone.
> 
> 
> I means that the code itself could be adopted, as newer and younger
> programmer (like Andy) need to be encouraged to contribute.

Andy has thousands of commits in Linux. He's *very* far from being a new
contributor.

> I express no obvious objections, just hints him that something else
> probably should also be taken into consideration as well.

That might be what you wanted to express, but you definitely didn't
express it that way.

> On the other hand, we probably should allow other people participate
> in discussion so that it is sufficient discussed and ensure that it
> won't be reverted by someone in the future for some reasons. Backing
> to out case happens here, we may need to move things forward. Therefore,
> it definitely deserve to have a try. It is not a big deal even though
> it gets reverted someday.
> 
> In the end, I don't mind if you think there is nothing that could
> prevent you from merge it, but I still suggest you have a glance at
> peoples siting at the Cc list. I'm busy now and I have a lot of other
> tasks to do, and may not be able to reply you emails on time. So it up
> to you and other maintainers to decide.
> Thank you.

So far, you're the only one who reviewed those patches. I'm not sure
what you're talking about here.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature