Re: [RFT PATCH 05/15] drm/mediatek: Call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() at shutdown time

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 4:51 AM Fei Shao <fshao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 7:42 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...<snip>
> > @@ -952,6 +960,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops mtk_drm_pm_ops = {
> >  static struct platform_driver mtk_drm_platform_driver = {
> >         .probe  = mtk_drm_probe,
> >         .remove = mtk_drm_remove,
>
> I think this patch, and perhaps some others in this series, will have
> a trivial conflict to Uwe's work about the remove callback conversion
> e.g. [1], so you might want to rebase the series onto the latest
> linux-next.
>
> On the other hand, I tested this patch on MT8195 and MT8188
> Chromebooks and I don't see issues during boot / reboot, so
>
> Reviewed-by: Fei Shao <fshao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Fei Shao <fshao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chunkuang.hu/linux.git/commit/?h=mediatek-drm-next&id=b3af12a0b46888340e024ba8b231605bcf2d0ab3

That makes sense. I had based this series on drm-misc-next which
didn't have those, but now that a new -rc1 is out it then
drm-misc-next should rebase shortly. I'll make sure that the next
version includes Uwe's changes as much as possible.

That being said, I also wouldn't object if the maintainer of this DRM
driver wanted to resolve conflicts themselves and land the patch
without me needing to resend. The conflict is trivial, there are no
dependencies and no reason to land the series all at once, so landing
this patch early would mean less spam for the maintainer since they
would no longer get CCed on future versions. :-P Just sayin...

-Doug