Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-tfp410: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:40 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:43:20AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), but
> > > works with arbitrary firmware node.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Andrzej, Neil,
> > >
> > > This depends on the new code that can be bound in
> > > ib-fwnode-gpiod-get-index immutable branch of Linus' Walleij tree:
> > >
> > >         git pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git ib-fwnode-gpiod-get-index
> > >
> > > I hope that it would be possible to pull in this immutable branch and
> > > not wait until after 5.5 merge window, or, alternatively, merge through
> > > Linus Walleij's tree.
> >
> > Any chance this could be merged, please?
>
> I'm happy to merge it into the GPIO tree if some DRM maintainer can
> provide an ACK.

Ack.

> Getting ACK from DRM people is problematic and a bit of friction in the
> community, DVetter usually advice to seek mutual reviews etc, but IMO
> it would be better if some people felt more compelled to review stuff
> eventually. (And that has the problem that it doesn't scale.)

This has a review already plus if you merge your implied review.
That's more than good enough imo, so not seeing the issue here?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch