Re: [PATCH 0/2] pwm: mtk-disp: Fix backlight configuration at boot

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 08/03/23 16:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman ha scritto:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 03:55:59PM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Il 08/03/23 15:50, Greg Kroah-Hartman ha scritto:
> > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:46:07PM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > Il 23/02/23 15:16, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno ha scritto:
> > > > > Il 23/01/23 17:06, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno ha scritto:
> > > > > > Since the pwm-mtk-disp driver was fixed to get PWM_EN state from the
> > > > > > right register, an old two-wrongs-make-one-right issue emerged: as a
> > > > > > result, MT8192 Asurada Spherion got no backlight at boot unless a
> > > > > > suspend/resume cycle was performed.
> > > > > > Also, the backlight would sometimes not get updated with the requested
> > > > > > value, requiring the user to change it back and forth until it worked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This series fixes both of the aforementioned issues found on MT8192.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2):
> > > > > >      pwm: mtk-disp: Disable shadow registers before setting backlight
> > > > > >        values
> > > > > >      pwm: mtk-disp: Configure double buffering before reading in
> > > > > >        .get_state()
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > > > >     1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Gentle ping for this one: this is fixing backlight issues on multiple MediaTek
> > > > > SoCs and was well tested.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Angelo
> > > >
> > > > Since this series was sent more than one month ago, and since this fixes broken
> > > > backlight on a number of Chromebooks with MT8183 and MT8192 SoCs, and seen the
> > > > urgency of getting these fixes in, I'm adding Greg to the loop.
> > >
> > > $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c
> > > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:PWM SUBSYSTEM)
> > > "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:PWM SUBSYSTEM)
> > > Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:ARM/Mediatek SoC support)
> > > AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:ARM/Mediatek SoC support)
> > > linux-pwm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:PWM SUBSYSTEM)
> > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support)
> > > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support)
> > > linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support)
> > >
> > > I don't see my name in there, did I become the PWM maintainer somehow?
> > >
> > > What's wrong with Thierry taking this like normal?
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. I felt like this series got ignored as I've never
> > received any reply from Thierry, even though it's a Fixes series that I deem
> > to be moderately urgent; that's why I added you to the loop.
>
> Then ask Thierry and Uwe, what would you want to have happen if you were
> the maintainer of a subsystem?
>
> > If that created unnecessary noise, I'm extremely sorry and won't happen again.
>
> Not noise, just confusion on my part.  I'm glad to take patches that
> have no obvious maintainers, or maintainers that have disappeared, but
> that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> Also remember that we had the merge window, which is 2 weeks of us not
> being able to take any new code at all, even for fixes.
>
> And finally, to make it easier for your code to be accepted, please take
> the time to review other's code for the subsystems you care about to
> make the maintainer's load easier.  If you do that, you will often find
> your patches getting faster response just by virtue of there being less
> work to do on the subsystem overall.  Why not do that right now to help
> out with other PWM patches?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

That's right, I see the point. Will try to help as soon as I can find BW.

Thanks and sorry again,
Angelo