Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] drm/tiny: add support for PIXPAPER 4.26 monochrome e-ink panel

[Devarsh Thakkar]

Hi LiangCheng,

On 18/09/26 11:55, LiangCheng Wang wrote:
> Hi Devarsh,
>
> Good to hear from you, and thank you for picking the fixes up.
>
> > Kindly let me know if we are aligned on this.
>
> That all sounds good to me, and I am glad it is moving again.  I will test
> v2 on the PIXPAPER 4.26m as soon as it is out and send a Tested-by.

Thanks for all the help.

> There is one thing worth settling before you post.  Back in July [1] you
> wrote:
>
>    Certainly. I'll exclude the pixpaper-426m support patches from my V2
>    submission so you can handle the review and validation on your end.
>
> That is still what I would prefer: the 4.26m is the only SSD16xx hardware
> I have, and its binding is already acked, so I am in a good position to
> validate the panel and to look after it afterwards.  Unless you would
> rather it went differently, I will send the panel entry and its binding on
> top of your v2 once it is out.

Yes I don't plan to send the pixpaper-426m patches from my branch as 
suggested earlier, you can send it on top of my v2 series as discussed 
in the earlier thread [0]. Also I am glad that those patches helped, 
thanks for validating.

> Please reshape the three fixes however v2 needs - they were written
> against your staging branch and the driver has moved on since.  Two small
> requests from my reply at the time [2]:

I need to have a deeper look at those patches, I had also been modifying 
driver as per pending review comments and fixed few issues around 
rotation too in my internal dev branch, so would want to see if any of 
those changes fix similar issues or not. I may need your help and reach 
out to you again for help with validation on pix-paper once I ready the 
v2 code. Also we can discuss direclty on #dri-devel (my user is 
devarsht) for faster alignment.

>    Please keep them as separate commits if you can - git am preserves
>    authorship; if you fold the first one in, a Co-developed-by with my
>    Signed-off-by would be appreciated.

Thanks for sharing those fixes, I need to have a deeper look on those 
patches as we discussed, but in general :

If the patches are bug fixes then as per kernel patch guidelines I would 
have to squash it to the patch introducing the bug to maintain 
bi-sectability and avoid issues in an intermediate patch, in that case I 
would try to attribute your contribution either in commit message or via 
co-developed tag as applicable.

If the patch is adding a separate feature on top of existing then I 
would keep it as a separate patch as you suggested.

In any case please be assured that I intend to credit you for your 
contributions.

Also since the driver is not merged yet, for any comments or suggestions 
on the core logic, please feel free to post it as review comments on my 
v2 and that way it becomes easier.

Regards
Devarsh

>    I maintain the existing PIXPAPER MAINTAINERS entry - would you mind
>    adding me as R: on the SSD16xx one, so I stay on CC and can retest?


> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/8fcfab0f-6b98-478b-be4a-c5b810fb3524@xxxxxx/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260731035705.3198816-1-zaq14760@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> Regards,
> LiangCheng